| Poll |
| Is min/maxing a problem in Blackbox? |
| Yes |
|
24% |
[ 16 ] |
| No |
|
38% |
[ 25 ] |
| Who cares? Now where's my pie? |
|
36% |
[ 24 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 65 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
 Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 15:26 |
 
|
No, min/max isn't a problem. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 15:27 |
|
The main problem is the name. |
|
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 15:27 |
|
There are problems in TV that allow coaches to min/max in a way that it feels almost unfair some of the time.
Like.. i'd like blood bowl to lean simulating sports: i don't like the idea that having skilled people and bench is a PENALTY for whole team.
Inducements are supposed to give handicap. But having skilled linos or bloated positionals give too much handicap in some cases (too often) that it makes coaches to "force" to retire healthy linos or bloated positionals.. which is "unsportmanship" in my eyes.. but i don't blame coaches for doing that. I do it myself. I don't hate players for doing it.. i hate the game for us to be almost forced to do that because if we don't, then we allow opponent to take much more inducements or allow his team to have more players or more (useful) skills in comparison.
But i didn't like the ideas in the recent TV-problems-topic.. mostly the ideas just allowed different kind of min/maxing happening.. like if blodge get's "taxed", then elf-blitzers won't pick dodge as first normal (but what could they pick instead?).. then catchers/gutters would pick wrestle more often rather than block.. also those proposed changes might hurt teams structure.. either they forgot that some teams must be build around few skilled positionals (skaven, undead, woodelfs) and some are build around to have skills divided equally (lizards, dark elfs, dwarfs)..
It's quite good as it is.. but not perfect.. and i believe that it can't be perfect.. it could be better tho.. but it will take time, trial and error to get there for sure  |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 15:44 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | Is the question in the context of behaviour, pricing of stuff, both, or neither? |
As I see it, the problem is pretty large.
It extends from North to South.
Both valued and despised, it is pretty chaotic.
It's more glaring at some times of the day.
It often lets the good and the bad times roll without being rerolled.
It leaves the bench cold and hits the sweet spot.
It gets recycled after a few scrums.
It is what it is.
It is not what it ain't.
ADD.
Is it a problem?
I'm glad you asked. |
|
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 16:14 |
|
I would love to offer an opinion but i don't really play in the box enough to have one on this.
I'm to busy getting my arse kicked in the SWL over in league. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 18:31 |
|
There are literally two problems in Box and neither of them are constantly plaguing every activation every time.
1. Teams relying on a mismatch of team age to gain a meta-game advantage over their opponent. Any long lived 0-1 rr team that has a sufficient 'games played' advantage over the opponent would qualify.
2. Coaches activating only one team per activation - mono activators. They benefit from mismatches in TV against their super cpomb team by making that the only option for other coaches to draw against.
Activation team quotas per coach would work some way towards solving both of those but ya'll want the freedom you have in Ranked without the repercussion of offering bad matchups in Ranked. Box has a free rider problem. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 18:38 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
2. Coaches activating only one team per activation - mono activators. They benefit from mismatches in TV against their super cpomb team by making that the only option for other coaches to draw against.
Activation team quotas per coach would work some way towards solving both of those but ya'll want the freedom you have in Ranked without the repercussion of offering bad matchups in Ranked.Or sitting on Game Finder for hours because no one wants to play against your team. You go where they have no choice but to play your style of team |
I agree, that right there is the root cause of the majority of issues with Black Box.
|
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 18:43 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | Cheating is against the rules. Now we have something that within the rules, but outside of the norm? Give me a break!
The last system i knew that had grey rules, and unknown expectation was the communist dictatorship. Come on people, you must be better than that. |
Yeah, I'm going to pull you up on this. What you call grey rules I call social rules. Social rules are rules that make a sport/life work, but wouldn't work if they were official rules.
A sporting example: Cycling: Do not attack while going through a tunnel, it's dangerous. Result: One guy did this, and never won a race again. Social rule that works. This isn't communism.
A life example: Not being an asswit: Stopping your car to let an elderly person to cross the road. Legally you don't need to do that. However not to be a ****, it's pretty much accepted as a social rule, you do it.
Pretty much, this thread could be summed up as 'Is the bull**** that BGhandras and a few others are pulling, ok?'
I say no. Speaking about your 'playstyle'; I would conjecture that you even being accepted as the part of the community is quite amazing. In Ranked and Open League you play the weakest teams and coaches. I believe that 'playstyle' is known as cherrypicking? In Box you sit at a ridiculous TV with uber pumped teams that win as much as 97% of their games.
Is that ok? Seriously....teams winning upto 97% of their games based on dice......is that ok or even acceptable? My opinion is that is far from ok. Tipping games so that you win before the coin is tossed is far from ok.
You liken it to communism. I liken it to (as an example) "A town has lived on a river their whole life. Living of the shell fish, Salmon and fresh water it provides. However some asswitt decides to build a dam (lets call that river 'Blackbox river' and the dam errr lets call it hmmm '1210TV Norse'). The dam (1210TV Norse) siphons off every elf....errr sorry salmon that passes that way. It leaves very little for the town as basically before it can get there old 1210TV Norse has massacred it).
However if the towns people (who had a pretty good eco-system) complain about the dam and dam owner taking 90-97% of the salmon. The Dam owner cries "Communism". |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:04 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
2. Coaches activating only one team per activation - mono activators. They benefit from mismatches in TV against their super cpomb team by making that the only option for other coaches to draw against.
Activation team quotas per coach would work some way towards solving both of those but ya'll want the freedom you have in Ranked without the repercussion of offering bad matchups in Ranked. Box has a free rider problem. |
Force people to activate teams that they don't want to play and they won't play at all. Then you are into "not enough coaches" territory.
| harvestmouse wrote: |
A sporting example: Cycling: Do not attack while going through a tunnel, it's dangerous. Result: One guy did this, and never won a race again. Social rule that works. This isn't communism. |
This is the kind of logic a lot people simply will not understand.
If it is dangerous to attack in a tunnel why wouldn't you pass a rule saying "no attacking in a tunnel"? Seriously.
If you really don't want people to do something, pass a rule. |
_________________
Open [L]eague Tournaments - NOW recruiting!! Old/New style skill progression! - Secret League - All Stars! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:05 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Stopping your car to let an elderly person to cross the road. Legally you don't need to do that.
|
Two things about this. First, if you drive a person over intentionally, it doesn't matter that the person was violating traffic laws. It is still murder/attempted murder.
If the (elderly) person on the other hand stands at the side of the road and you stop and wave that person to pass you should consider these scenarios:
A car behind you crashes into you.
You caused the accident by surprisingly stopping.
A car sees you stopping and drives past you and crashes into the elderly person that is now crossing the road. You're responsible since you were signalling to the elderly person the street was secure to cross.
Conclusion:
Don't ever mess with the traffic rules. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:09 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: |
2. Coaches activating only one team per activation - mono activators. They benefit from mismatches in TV against their super cpomb team by making that the only option for other coaches to draw against.
Activation team quotas per coach would work some way towards solving both of those but ya'll want the freedom you have in Ranked without the repercussion of offering bad matchups in Ranked. Box has a free rider problem. |
Force people to activate teams that they don't want to play and they won't play at all. Then you are into "not enough coaches" territory. |
And yet it seems the people who only activate the one team drive off other coaches anyway. Frankly it's simply time for forced diversity. If you can't find 3 teams you are willing to play then go @#$# yourself for the good of everyone else.
| koadah wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: |
A sporting example: Cycling: Do not attack while going through a tunnel, it's dangerous. Result: One guy did this, and never won a race again. Social rule that works. This isn't communism. |
This is the kind of logic a lot people simply will not understand.
If it is dangerous to attack in a tunnel why wouldn't you pass a rule saying "no attacking in a tunnel"? Seriously.
If you really don't want people to do something, pass a rule. |
Yes, let's pass the forced diversity rule already. Since as opposed to cycling where the cyclist could still 'break the rule' forced 3 team minimum activation could be designed to not be broken.
Let's also drop the stupid 2 match minimum rule, it protects against something that never happens anyway. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:11 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: |
2. Coaches activating only one team per activation - mono activators. They benefit from mismatches in TV against their super cpomb team by making that the only option for other coaches to draw against.
Activation team quotas per coach would work some way towards solving both of those but ya'll want the freedom you have in Ranked without the repercussion of offering bad matchups in Ranked.Or sitting on Game Finder for hours because no one wants to play against your team. You go where they have no choice but to play your style of team |
I agree, that right there is the root cause of the majority of issues with Black Box.
|
Pretty much. Insulate people from the consequences of their crappy anti-social behavior, expect that behavior to continue, even grow as it signals to other people it's okay. We already see this with mediocre and relatively inexperienced coaches hopping on the Cpomb bandwagon in the hopes that it can soothe their weaknesses as a coach and give them unearned victories.
I will never understand how always being able to play the one exact team you want to all the time always was deemed more important than building the most robust randomize matchmaking system with sufficient inputs.
There's no turning back now since the worst coaches who do this are entrenched in their self serving believe that the autonomy to activate only one team is the most important aspect of the Box matchmaking system. If Box had started out with a 4 team minimum per coach with diversity among those 4 choices, it's arguable that Box would never had been as popular as it is now or past. But it's also arguable that we wouldn't be spinning our wheels about how a handful of bad, self serving apples, spoil the whole bunch. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:15 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
A life example: Not being an asswit: Stopping your car to let an elderly person to cross the road. Legally you don't need to do that. However not to be a ****, it's pretty much accepted as a social rule, you do it. |
In Italy if there is a pedestrian crossing you are legally compelled to slow down and stop to let the person cross the road.
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Is that ok? Seriously....teams winning upto 97% of their games based on dice......is that ok or even acceptable? My opinion is that is far from ok. Tipping games so that you win before the coin is tossed is far from ok. |
bghandras for sure keeps lean his rosters, but do you really think his Pro Elf 97% win rate is just due to that? 
You should blame the ruleset and the lack of house ruling.
If a kind of TV management is deemed unacceptable then a house rule should be enforced, is really that simple.
A good starter might be forbidding to have 0 team rrs.
| licker wrote: |
Frankly it's simply time for forced diversity. If you can't find 3 teams you are willing to play then go @#$# yourself for the good of everyone else. |
I agree.
3 different races, to preventing people from activating 3 Nurgle teams. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Sep 07, 2016; edited 1 time in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:17 |
|
|
Rbthma
Joined: Jan 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2016 - 19:19 |
|
| Timetis wrote: | | Throweck wrote: | | Verminardo wrote: | | The scheduler change has solved this problem. Rookie teams have protection for the first 15 games. I don't see many hardcore minmax teams in Box anymore. I find it interesting how much some people who never play Box think they have to say on the subject. |
This is definitely a factor Vermi.
I play Box quite a bit now and in my over 550 box games I remember meeting 3, at most, minmaxed teams (no RR pact in my experience)
I do think there is a culture of jumping on the bandwagon for dissing box, which is a shame. Some coaches play 1 game in box, have a bad experience and that's it. I think it could be an acquired taste perhaps but I don't see a lot wrong with box at the minute. It's where I prefer to play if I don't have league or Tourney games.
What will our 145ers and newer coaches think? |
What throweck said. |
Well, I'm new to the Box and so far my experience has been good. There of course are always teams that are problematic, but it seems no worse than in ranked tbh. At times, I'll activate my Box teams because the teams on gamefinder are worse match-ups than what I probably would receive in the Box.
If there's any issue, it might be with variety - I haven't faced many Elf, High Elf, Wood Elf, Norse, Slann, Halfling, Goblin, Ogre, Vampire, Amazon and Skaven teams. This may be an issue in other divisons however as some are not Tier 1 teams obviously.
Keep in mind I've only played 66 Box matches with only 2 teams out from the 15 game protection period.
As far as min/max goes - I've seen a few (2-3) teams that would probably qualify for that, but my sampling is on the lower end. |
|
|
|
|
| |
102+ Custom Rosters ...
Search
