37 coaches online • Server time: 09:18
* * * Did you know? The best rusher is debog with 8789 rushing yards.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnomes are trash | ramchop takes on the... | Chaos Draft League R... |
2012-06-27 14:20:19
34 votes, rating 5.5
34 votes, rating 5.5
End the rookie suffering!
The box is far from perfect, but there is one problem in particular that I believe is over the top awful and (I think) it could be fixed or greatly improved with a small change. I realize it's been talked about elsewhere but I wanted to write up my thoughts in one place.
The problem is ultra low TV minmaxed teams that are carefully designed to get games against rookie teams and then destroy them. I'm not talking about straight up clawpomb, I mean teams that have 15 carefully chosen skills or stat increases that rookie teams aren't going to have any answer for.
I'm going to pick on blader4411's Kill Your Heroes because it is easy to dismiss what I'm trying to say as "more whining about the box" unless you've actually seen one of these teams. I just played 2 out of my first 4 matches with a new team against the team linked above.
Trying to counter a +ST, blodge, tackle, sure hands, two heads elf with a rookie team? Sure it's winnable sometimes - but WHY should this be allowed on the site? I hear people say things like "well, just get through that TV range" but that is an unsatisfying answer.
Of course, bladder isn't doing anything that is against the rules. Depending on your point of view this is either a very clever way to take advantage of the scheduler to maximize the winning of games and the killing of men, or it is the FUMBBL equivalent of taking candy from little kids, dancing in the endzone with it, and getting rewarded for your trouble.
Personally, I think this harms the site. Are new coaches who wander in and play 3/10 of their first games against such teams going to want to stick around? And if they do is it only to create such monsters? Do any FUMBBL regulars really want to play such one sided matches with their rookie teams?
Okay, enough whining about cheese. I suggest a change to the box scheduler to take the number of games played into account for the first few games of any team. Here is one way to do it:
Surely there would be better, more complicated ways of doing it. I care very little about the exact details as long as the overall goal is achieved. I want to end the practice of a team with with 0 games getting matched against a team with 100+ games. That is all.
The problem is ultra low TV minmaxed teams that are carefully designed to get games against rookie teams and then destroy them. I'm not talking about straight up clawpomb, I mean teams that have 15 carefully chosen skills or stat increases that rookie teams aren't going to have any answer for.
I'm going to pick on blader4411's Kill Your Heroes because it is easy to dismiss what I'm trying to say as "more whining about the box" unless you've actually seen one of these teams. I just played 2 out of my first 4 matches with a new team against the team linked above.
Trying to counter a +ST, blodge, tackle, sure hands, two heads elf with a rookie team? Sure it's winnable sometimes - but WHY should this be allowed on the site? I hear people say things like "well, just get through that TV range" but that is an unsatisfying answer.
Of course, bladder isn't doing anything that is against the rules. Depending on your point of view this is either a very clever way to take advantage of the scheduler to maximize the winning of games and the killing of men, or it is the FUMBBL equivalent of taking candy from little kids, dancing in the endzone with it, and getting rewarded for your trouble.
Personally, I think this harms the site. Are new coaches who wander in and play 3/10 of their first games against such teams going to want to stick around? And if they do is it only to create such monsters? Do any FUMBBL regulars really want to play such one sided matches with their rookie teams?
Okay, enough whining about cheese. I suggest a change to the box scheduler to take the number of games played into account for the first few games of any team. Here is one way to do it:
If a team has played 10 or fewer games then it can only be matched (with normal TV matching) with a team that has played double that many games or fewer. For teams with 0 games I'd say they can be matched against teams with 0-1 games.
For example, a team with 3 games could be matched against teams with 2-6 games. A team with 6 games could be matched against teams with 3-12 games and so on up to 10 games vs 5-20 games. After a team plays 10 games then the gloves are off and it's back to normal box matching.
Surely there would be better, more complicated ways of doing it. I care very little about the exact details as long as the overall goal is achieved. I want to end the practice of a team with with 0 games getting matched against a team with 100+ games. That is all.
Comments
Posted by Verbalcody on 2012-06-27 14:27:24
Yar I havent played in a long time and came back recently to teams playing my rookie team with 3 re rolls and 12 guys against 11 guys with like a combined 400 SP points
I thought it was some kind of matching glitch, but its instead just the cheapest way to make sure you win a game
now ive never been a good coach, but i do love the game and have fun even in my many losses, but this was the least fun I have had
This is just like anyone who cheats at any other online game. I guess cheat is a bad word, but do you really want to win this badly?? And what are you taking away from these wins? I never understood it
For the good of fair play.
I thought it was some kind of matching glitch, but its instead just the cheapest way to make sure you win a game
now ive never been a good coach, but i do love the game and have fun even in my many losses, but this was the least fun I have had
This is just like anyone who cheats at any other online game. I guess cheat is a bad word, but do you really want to win this badly?? And what are you taking away from these wins? I never understood it
For the good of fair play.
Posted by blader4411 on 2012-06-27 14:38:06
The question to pose her would be: what if a team with 100+ games was knocked down to TV1000 via injuries?
Your system would indicate that this team could then now draw most of the low-TV opponents available, and would languish in its injured state, unable to rebuild at all.
I'm all for changes to prevent exploits, but it has to be done carefully.
Your system would indicate that this team could then now draw most of the low-TV opponents available, and would languish in its injured state, unable to rebuild at all.
I'm all for changes to prevent exploits, but it has to be done carefully.
Posted by Arktoris on 2012-06-27 14:59:58
welcome home, happygrue
signed,
The ranked division
signed,
The ranked division
Posted by the_Sage on 2012-06-27 15:05:14
Grue: I agree, and think your proposal is on to something. However, I think your setup is too strict. I'd say that under 5 games, you should not be paired with anyone who's played > 5 games more than you have. 5-10, double is fine. Maybe even up to 15?
Blader: I'm glad to see you're responding to this in a very rational way.
One thing you could do is widen the TV range for older teams (as is done in ranked). That way when there are no equal-TV teams available per the games played rule, you get paired up with a bigger old team, and get some inducements.
Blader: I'm glad to see you're responding to this in a very rational way.
One thing you could do is widen the TV range for older teams (as is done in ranked). That way when there are no equal-TV teams available per the games played rule, you get paired up with a bigger old team, and get some inducements.
Posted by Cloggy on 2012-06-27 15:10:23
Sixed it. Pretty elegant and simple solution to a complex problem.
Posted by Sammler_der_Seelen on 2012-06-27 15:26:02
Ranked and you can avoid that problem.
Posted by Korenn on 2012-06-27 15:31:02
I like the idea but I think it's a bit too restrictive.
Teams with 0 games can only play teams with 0-1 games? that means most of the time they can't be matched.
Limiting on the amount of games played seems like a good thing, but I think all teams below 10 should be treated equally (i.e. matched to teams with a maximum of 20 games). This maximises the pool of matchable teams while avoiding the killer teams.
Teams with 0 games can only play teams with 0-1 games? that means most of the time they can't be matched.
Limiting on the amount of games played seems like a good thing, but I think all teams below 10 should be treated equally (i.e. matched to teams with a maximum of 20 games). This maximises the pool of matchable teams while avoiding the killer teams.
Posted by robocoyote on 2012-06-27 15:31:43
This is why I play ranked and league. See you on gamefinder
Posted by cowhead on 2012-06-27 15:34:22
what if there is only a rookie team and one of these min/maxed teams at the same TV activated in the box at that time. would both teams have to activate again in hopes of finding a more suitable opponent because of cap in games or would they be allowed to play each other?
Posted by easilyamused on 2012-06-27 15:39:52
I would simplify this even further if it worked and just state that if a team has played less than 10 games it can only get paired with teams that have played less than 10 games. Sure it may stop some rookie teams getting games but apart from banning minmax which will never happen, nor should it happen, there's not really that many options.
Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2012-06-27 15:46:26
I think too many people look upon these sorts of teams with hatred. Personally I just look at them with pity. One coach of this sort had a team that for arguments sake was called ‘Really Big’. Straight away you can see that this sort of coach has severe confidence issues. Later on the team was retired as a wave of honesty broke and the new team ‘Really Little’ was born. (remember the team’s names have been altered to protect the individual involved)
The sort of coach that plays as these sorts of teams is probably the sort of coach that if they had a child (and sadly there has still yet to be a law passed insisting on a competency test before people are allowed to be parents) would challenge their new born to a game of scrabble and then ridicule the child when it lost. They will challenge old age pensioners that are wheelchair bound to a triple jump competition and not even have the god damn courtesy to build a ramp. They would probably only ever play eye-spy with Stevie Wonder.
Could you imagine how desperately sad that person must be in their life?
I don’t feel I am bragging when I say I am an ‘above average’ coach. In fact I probably am somewhere around the bottom end of the top 100. As such I feel a responsibility to play in such a way that newer, more inexperienced coaches can look up to. I shouldn’t have to rely on cheese tactics to win games. When I play the new coaches I should play rough but fair. All of these are self-imposed restrictions, but I stand by them.
So in future when you do play these teams rather than feel despondent, ask the coach if they are ok. Is there anything they want to get of their chest. They probably just need a hug and to be told that they are loved and their parents do love them really.
(disclaimer, if any of this offends you I apologise I am having a bad day at work. And don’t worry I do really believe your parents do love you!)
The sort of coach that plays as these sorts of teams is probably the sort of coach that if they had a child (and sadly there has still yet to be a law passed insisting on a competency test before people are allowed to be parents) would challenge their new born to a game of scrabble and then ridicule the child when it lost. They will challenge old age pensioners that are wheelchair bound to a triple jump competition and not even have the god damn courtesy to build a ramp. They would probably only ever play eye-spy with Stevie Wonder.
Could you imagine how desperately sad that person must be in their life?
I don’t feel I am bragging when I say I am an ‘above average’ coach. In fact I probably am somewhere around the bottom end of the top 100. As such I feel a responsibility to play in such a way that newer, more inexperienced coaches can look up to. I shouldn’t have to rely on cheese tactics to win games. When I play the new coaches I should play rough but fair. All of these are self-imposed restrictions, but I stand by them.
So in future when you do play these teams rather than feel despondent, ask the coach if they are ok. Is there anything they want to get of their chest. They probably just need a hug and to be told that they are loved and their parents do love them really.
(disclaimer, if any of this offends you I apologise I am having a bad day at work. And don’t worry I do really believe your parents do love you!)
Posted by Cribbleobblepie on 2012-06-27 15:48:52
God I wish i could rate freak_in_a_frock's response a 6, sums up exactly how I feel about these teams. It frustrates me when good coaches use them and annoys me when bad coaches do.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2012-06-27 15:51:23
I would simplify this even further if it worked and just state that if a team has played less than 10 games it can only get paired with teams that have played less than 10 games. Sure it may stop some rookie teams getting games but apart from banning minmax which will never happen, nor should it happen, there's not really that many options.
Posted by easilyamused on 2012-06-27 15:52:59
Freak, you just made my day :)
Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2012-06-27 15:55:01
I'll blog it just for the memories
Posted by Woodstock on 2012-06-27 15:59:41
1. Join Ranked
2. Play how you want
3. ???
4. Profit!
No one forces you to play B, just like Christer is not going to force any one how to play or not to play.
2. Play how you want
3. ???
4. Profit!
No one forces you to play B, just like Christer is not going to force any one how to play or not to play.
Posted by shusaku on 2012-06-27 16:01:39
A winning ratio of ~66% is not really spectacular. This team has 66% winning ratio. It does not seem broken at all to me. You say its almost impossible to win against, but apparently it is not. If it aint broken, dont fix it.
.
Almost all my box teams have winning ratios in this area or higher (woodelf, dwarf and khemri). So they are probably all broken, and the scheduler should not schedule them, or do I not get the point?
.
Almost all my box teams have winning ratios in this area or higher (woodelf, dwarf and khemri). So they are probably all broken, and the scheduler should not schedule them, or do I not get the point?
Posted by koadah on 2012-06-27 16:20:36
"if a team has played less than 10 games it can only get paired with teams that have played less than 10 games."
I like this one. (Whoever said it first).
For teams who might get stranded at low TV the option relax/waive TV matching would be handy. ie so that they could still play against the bigger 10+ game teams.
I like this one. (Whoever said it first).
For teams who might get stranded at low TV the option relax/waive TV matching would be handy. ie so that they could still play against the bigger 10+ game teams.
Posted by easilyamused on 2012-06-27 16:42:05
@kodah - I think you would need something like that for fling/gobbo teams as well
Posted by happygrue on 2012-06-27 16:58:32
Good comments, too many to really respond to but I'll try to hit a few. I'm glad to see some interest in the idea (or some form of it, I don't pretend to be the first one to think of it and as said above the details don't matter as much to me as the goal).
I agree with blader that rebuilding might be a problem - also slow to build teams like nurgle, ogres, etc - but as The_Sage and Koadah and maybe others indicate there will be other teams in the lower ranges still. I doubt it would be a huge problem but without data all I could do is speculate. But there is some data on this team in particular (I'm sure other examples like blodge zons with a mbpo blitzer and other stat-freak legend teams exist)
And @shusaku: You are a fantastic coach. What you do in the box with woodies is amazing. But have you actually tried to start a lesser race and run across one of these teams a few times before you get to 1300+?
Let's dive into the numbers of this team a bit more. The earlier record is mixed, but of the last 26 games (counting from the first time the team was below 1300 and after the super elf had taken shape) the team's record was 19/3/4. That's a 79% win rate (as the site calculates it) for a coach with an overall win rate of 47%. And if you look at the loses that are there it is because of things like removing the elf, the elf is MNG, or blitzes and other shenanigans. Is it broken? Is it impossible to win? I did not say either of those things. I said it's bad for the site and lessens the fun for most of us to have to play against such teams with rookie teams because of a LACK of rules (IE the scheduler).
But thanks to all for a civil and useful debate!
I agree with blader that rebuilding might be a problem - also slow to build teams like nurgle, ogres, etc - but as The_Sage and Koadah and maybe others indicate there will be other teams in the lower ranges still. I doubt it would be a huge problem but without data all I could do is speculate. But there is some data on this team in particular (I'm sure other examples like blodge zons with a mbpo blitzer and other stat-freak legend teams exist)
And @shusaku: You are a fantastic coach. What you do in the box with woodies is amazing. But have you actually tried to start a lesser race and run across one of these teams a few times before you get to 1300+?
Let's dive into the numbers of this team a bit more. The earlier record is mixed, but of the last 26 games (counting from the first time the team was below 1300 and after the super elf had taken shape) the team's record was 19/3/4. That's a 79% win rate (as the site calculates it) for a coach with an overall win rate of 47%. And if you look at the loses that are there it is because of things like removing the elf, the elf is MNG, or blitzes and other shenanigans. Is it broken? Is it impossible to win? I did not say either of those things. I said it's bad for the site and lessens the fun for most of us to have to play against such teams with rookie teams because of a LACK of rules (IE the scheduler).
But thanks to all for a civil and useful debate!
Posted by happygrue on 2012-06-27 17:02:20
Wanted to add that 11 of the last 11 games are wins, and in the last one the elf added two heads and became a legend. All in all I have to say well done blader for getting the job done! But now let's change the rules... ;)
Posted by blader4411 on 2012-06-27 18:01:05
@happygrue:
One thing to take note of regarding my win-rate is that a lot of those losses came from before my hiatus a while back. I came to FUMBBL having never played Blood Bowl before, with a fondness for weak teams and in the pre-Journeyman era of LRB4. That, and I played dozens of games in Stunty Leeg.
I lost. A lot :D
When I returned sometime last year from my hiatus, my win rate was 35%. Since then, I have taken the time to actually learn how to play, and now its risen steadily up to 47%. I can only hope it stays there at the very least, but the point is, I'm not quite as bad as the percentage suggests. (Still bad though)
One thing to take note of regarding my win-rate is that a lot of those losses came from before my hiatus a while back. I came to FUMBBL having never played Blood Bowl before, with a fondness for weak teams and in the pre-Journeyman era of LRB4. That, and I played dozens of games in Stunty Leeg.
I lost. A lot :D
When I returned sometime last year from my hiatus, my win rate was 35%. Since then, I have taken the time to actually learn how to play, and now its risen steadily up to 47%. I can only hope it stays there at the very least, but the point is, I'm not quite as bad as the percentage suggests. (Still bad though)
Posted by hale on 2012-06-27 18:21:12
Agree with such an idea to limit the pickers and protect newer teams. Though I appreciate the diversity of tactics from any coach who plays within the rules, it may not be my cup of tea to coach a minmax or other cheese build team but it's good that we have these coaches out there.
Posted by blader4411 on 2012-06-27 18:26:55
The coaches who exploit the rules in Blood Bowl, as in any other game, are the ones who drive the ruleset towards greater balance.
If the flaws were never uncovered for the masses to see, they'd never be changed.
If the flaws were never uncovered for the masses to see, they'd never be changed.
Posted by dode74 on 2012-06-27 18:35:35
Good point, blader4411. Maybe TV matching should be changed ;)
Posted by blader4411 on 2012-06-27 18:45:34
I'm not arguing against change, but instead arguing against reckless change that might leave things worse than they are now :P
Posted by dode74 on 2012-06-27 19:16:32
Indeed. Say, maybe there are other environments where minmaxing is far less of an issue that we could learn lessons from and maybe even try to emulate in some manner...
Posted by Nelphine on 2012-06-27 19:24:07
I like this suggestion for one reason:
Rookie COACHES.
If i personally make a team in the box and its first game is against 6 clawpomb cdorfs, or bladers team, or 11 blodging/guard amazons, well it sucks,and I lose, but I move on.
But if someone makes their first (and second and third and 4th), and chooses the box, then they also lose, and it sucks and they probably quit the site. They chose the box because to them it seemed easier than ranked - and they're so new, they don't know what the differences really are, nor where they can find out more. So for this individual Ranked is (mistakenly) not a choice. So we lose someone who could have become a regular on the site.
And THAT is why I think there should be some kind of limit on games difference for rookie teams. Although, if you want to change it to a limit based on rookie coaches that works for me.
Rookie COACHES.
If i personally make a team in the box and its first game is against 6 clawpomb cdorfs, or bladers team, or 11 blodging/guard amazons, well it sucks,and I lose, but I move on.
But if someone makes their first (and second and third and 4th), and chooses the box, then they also lose, and it sucks and they probably quit the site. They chose the box because to them it seemed easier than ranked - and they're so new, they don't know what the differences really are, nor where they can find out more. So for this individual Ranked is (mistakenly) not a choice. So we lose someone who could have become a regular on the site.
And THAT is why I think there should be some kind of limit on games difference for rookie teams. Although, if you want to change it to a limit based on rookie coaches that works for me.
Posted by bghandras on 2012-06-27 19:33:36
Why some people do this? Because it seems to be beneficial. How to avoid it? Make beneficial which is fun for BOTH players. If skills are expensive, inefficient, then may damage fun.
I know it wont happen soon, but the whole issue could be solved with a different pricing policy for skills, and for linos and positionals. I am sure that minmaxing was never considered when amazon linewoman was priced at 50k, and amazon blitzer priced at 90k. And this is only one team, one comparison.
My 1st point is that some positionals are really not premium in the minmaxed economic world, which leads to teams with low TV in that segment.
My 2nd point is that noone would get rid off skilled players if skill would cost 10k instead of 20k. (Not suggesting to implement 10k, but to highlight the logic.)
I know it wont happen soon, but the whole issue could be solved with a different pricing policy for skills, and for linos and positionals. I am sure that minmaxing was never considered when amazon linewoman was priced at 50k, and amazon blitzer priced at 90k. And this is only one team, one comparison.
My 1st point is that some positionals are really not premium in the minmaxed economic world, which leads to teams with low TV in that segment.
My 2nd point is that noone would get rid off skilled players if skill would cost 10k instead of 20k. (Not suggesting to implement 10k, but to highlight the logic.)
Posted by The_Murker on 2012-06-27 22:56:02
Good post. Rated 6. Before I forget... something to meditate on. "What is the point of playing Blackbox?"
PGoo stated very well that he ENJOYS a good game, and will look for those good games in R. He dosn't have time to risk a bad game and bad feelings towards his hobby by choosing Box right now. Excellent comment.
What is YOUR point to playing in BlackBox? I need to think about mine. I fear I enjoy winning more than I enjoy improving. Improveing and enjoying improvement at things is a key to good mental health. Unfortunatly, the most obvious (and distracting) indicator of improvement is winning. Food for thought.
I don't think FUMBBL really wants Box to be a place where UNchallenging games can be a norm if a coach builds a team a certain way. So my instinct says a simple proposal like the one here might do more than we might think to improve things, and I wish we didn't worry so much about the fate of low TV exploitation teams and what poor fate befalls them should they ever get destroyed themselves.
PGoo stated very well that he ENJOYS a good game, and will look for those good games in R. He dosn't have time to risk a bad game and bad feelings towards his hobby by choosing Box right now. Excellent comment.
What is YOUR point to playing in BlackBox? I need to think about mine. I fear I enjoy winning more than I enjoy improving. Improveing and enjoying improvement at things is a key to good mental health. Unfortunatly, the most obvious (and distracting) indicator of improvement is winning. Food for thought.
I don't think FUMBBL really wants Box to be a place where UNchallenging games can be a norm if a coach builds a team a certain way. So my instinct says a simple proposal like the one here might do more than we might think to improve things, and I wish we didn't worry so much about the fate of low TV exploitation teams and what poor fate befalls them should they ever get destroyed themselves.
Posted by Christer on 2012-06-27 22:56:09
Rather than posting a massive response to this, I wrote a blog entry of my own in response:
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=3&id=11499
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=3&id=11499
Posted by The_Murker on 2012-06-27 23:04:12
I just realised how obserd it would be for a pony type coach object to such a new scheduling implimentation if it was fairly done.
"Hey guys.. I think we have a serious problem here. My 150 match chaos team isn't able to play noobs. So frustrating!"
If less than 10's only play less than 20's, I don't see a problem. Above 20 games, do you really want to beat on unskilled teams?
"Hey guys.. I think we have a serious problem here. My 150 match chaos team isn't able to play noobs. So frustrating!"
If less than 10's only play less than 20's, I don't see a problem. Above 20 games, do you really want to beat on unskilled teams?
Posted by blader4411 on 2012-06-28 00:11:32
Read Christer's response, Murker, where he explains why a games played parameter is bad.
Posted by The_Murker on 2012-06-28 01:31:38
I read it. He says it COULD be bad. And it could. It could also be good. It would take an attempt to find out. Maybe even experimentation. But there would have to be an agreed upon situation to try and solve.
If old teams beating on new teams is not a situation... eh. Not my website, I guess. If it is undesirable, the question is.. "Is it more undesirable than the possible concequences?"
How many non-exploitative old teams are rebuilding sub-1200 TV? How long would they have to wait for a game? All speculation.
If old teams beating on new teams is not a situation... eh. Not my website, I guess. If it is undesirable, the question is.. "Is it more undesirable than the possible concequences?"
How many non-exploitative old teams are rebuilding sub-1200 TV? How long would they have to wait for a game? All speculation.
Posted by koadah on 2012-06-28 12:34:18
Many seem to think that the new Advanced Picking System will draw a lot of coaches away to Ranked. If that happens Box coaches could be glad of any game they can get.
Then it would be a waste of time implementing anything that restricts matches and we'll need the option to 'go random' just to get a game.
Though maybe the worst bushwackers will be drawn back to their old haunt. ;)
Then it would be a waste of time implementing anything that restricts matches and we'll need the option to 'go random' just to get a game.
Though maybe the worst bushwackers will be drawn back to their old haunt. ;)