Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 14:25 |
 
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | And I am quite willing to bet that we would have the same threads complain about a max TV gap no matter what that cap was. |
So if we had a cap, people might complain about its level, so we should have no cap at all...? Doesn't make sense
This is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good'
| Quote: | | .. max gap of around 145tv was ideal to him was what would box look like if we enacted that? And the answer is that we would largely end up with stunties only ever playing stunties |
I can't see at all why that would be the outcome ..??
IIRC teams who enter the draw at less than 1000k are matched as if they were at 1000k. This is to help teams who get loads of CAS still be able to get games to recover, and helps stunties get games where they can take bribes or chef by staying at 800-900k...
But I really don't see that as a driver to make people migrate from other rosters
Oh wait I think I get it. You're saying if someone queues with low-tv stunties, their only opponents would be other low-tv stunties.
No, because of the 'counts as 1000k' rule. They'll get matched against a regular team. This is already fixed
| Quote: | | Because enacting a 350tv cap would not stop game 1 s2 playing vs game 14 s2. |
No it wouldn't stop that. But TV matching is what we've got, and it's more useful than matching by games-played
Some teams can be built efficiently within their TV cost, yes
That's a separate question and not a new one, and TV-efficiency is a relevant factor when you build a team for the TV-matching environment that is the box
The arguement isn't really moving forward anymore here
I can see what koadah and Matt are advocating for, and hopefully I've been clear, but AD you seem to not be advocating *for* anything particular, just against others? I am curious what you think should be done to address OP's concerns |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 15:01 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | And I am quite willing to bet that we would have the same threads complain about a max TV gap no matter what that cap was. |
So if we had a cap, people might complain about its level, so we should have no cap at all...? Doesn't make sense
This is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good'
| Quote: | | .. max gap of around 145tv was ideal to him was what would box look like if we enacted that? And the answer is that we would largely end up with stunties only ever playing stunties |
I can't see at all why that would be the outcome ..??
IIRC teams who enter the draw at less than 1000k are matched as if they were at 1000k. This is to help teams who get loads of CAS still be able to get games to recover, and helps stunties get games where they can take bribes or chef by staying at 800-900k...
But I really don't see that as a driver to make people migrate from other rosters
Oh wait I think I get it. You're saying if someone queues with low-tv stunties, their only opponents would be other low-tv stunties.
No, because of the 'counts as 1000k' rule. They'll get matched against a regular team. This is already fixed
| Quote: | | Because enacting a 350tv cap would not stop game 1 s2 playing vs game 14 s2. |
No it wouldn't stop that. But TV matching is what we've got, and it's more useful than matching by games-played
Some teams can be built efficiently within their TV cost, yes
That's a separate question and not a new one, and TV-efficiency is a relevant factor when you build a team for the TV-matching environment that is the box
The arguement isn't really moving forward anymore here
I can see what koadah and Matt are advocating for, and hopefully I've been clear, but AD you seem to not be advocating *for* anything particular, just against others? I am curious what you think should be done to address OP's concerns |
The limitation TV-matching for a team is actually calculated before the counts as 1k. Here is a team for evidence should you require it https://fumbbl.com/t/1183915#teammatches.
I would, once more appreciate if you actually did the most basic research before dismissing my concerns out of hand. It's no longer just irksome, it's annoying to the point where I am seriously reconsidering why I bothered to come back to the website.
I have from the very start stated that I appreciate the matchup feels bad and that people might not wish to play it. I have also stated that you create additional downwards pressure with a tv gap cap (which already exists in the division anyway) and that it is an exclusionary method that shapes the entire division, while not correctly reflecting the actual nature of the teams involved.
What I am in favour of is rather simple - matches actually being possible. In a division which is consistently described by the site owner as either "dying" or "dying without assistance". Matt and yourself are advocating limiting steps on a scheduler that already struggles to produce games at off-peak times or outside certain TVs.
When you go to see the NHS there are guidelines for questioning they give the patient of a long-term condition, or one that may require surgery, they're roughly as follows:
What are the outcomes if I have the treatment?
What are the outcomes if I don't (at this time)?
What are the outcomes if I refuse treatment?
I'm suggesting we wait until there is actually engagement data for the division so that those questions can even be answered. Because right now all we're doing is theorising, and as such I am therefore providing the counter arguments, mostly because you do not seem to consider them yourself. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 15:18 |
|
The NHS analogy seems to be that if we wait long enough the patient may die and we'll save the cost of having to treat them. 
Edit: Part of the problem with waiting is that you can lose people who then become comfortable elsewhere.
If you later change it to the way that they wanted it, they may already have too many things going on to come back. 
That is if they even check back in to know that it has changed. |
_________________
20 Year Anniversary! - 2016 Nostalgia Bowl - Coming April! -- All Star Bowl - Always recruiting!
Last edited by koadah on Mar 18, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 15:28 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | The limitation TV-matching for a team is actually calculated before the counts as 1k. Here is a team for evidence should you require it https://fumbbl.com/t/1183915#teammatches |
If you're lower than 1000k you get matched as if you're 1000k
If there's another available team that's also lower than 1000k, it also attempts to match with them - I should have added this part so it was clearer
You complain about my research but it sounds like you weren't aware of the rule at all until I mentioned it
| Quote: | | What I am in favour of is rather simple - matches actually being possible. In a division which is consistently described by the site owner as either "dying" or "dying without assistance". Matt and yourself are advocating limiting steps on a scheduler that already struggles to produce games at off-peak times or outside certain TVs. |
Ok so no cap, and wait. This doesn't help OP's concerns / has its own risks.. but it is probably what we'll end up doing |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 15:48 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | The limitation TV-matching for a team is actually calculated before the counts as 1k. Here is a team for evidence should you require it https://fumbbl.com/t/1183915#teammatches |
If you're lower than 1000k you get matched as if you're 1000k
If there's another available team that's also lower than 1000k, it also attempts to match with them - I should have added this part so it was clearer
You complain about my research but it sounds like you weren't aware of the rule at all until I mentioned it |
I was plenty aware.
Christer — 05/03/2025 08:26
The intent is to hard-block over 350k CTV difference
Christer — 25/10/2024 18:41
And yes, raw CTV differences above 350k are hard vetoed.
Christer — 25/10/2024 18:19
The reason for that is often a combination of multiple things:
Sub 1M, teams count as 1M, except for the hard 350k TV limit
There is a small random factor added to "suitability" to explicitly add some randomness. This is to make it harder to "force" specific matchups.
Christer — 30/08/2024 10:18
There is a 350k TV differential hard limit, so you can't go too low.
Christer — 14/02/2024 12:29
Sub 1M counts as 1M for scheduling purposes (but not for the 350k difference TV hard limit). Then there's a slight random factor involved, which can bump it in situations like this.
Christer — 01/01/2024 13:28
TV under 1M counts as 1M for the scheduler (except when looking at the 350k TV limit)
Christer — 13/12/2023 21:02
You probably need to solo-queue them
oh, you're 430k..
Yeah, that's not going to be very easy to get paired at all.
There's a 350k hard limit in TV difference.
Christer — 13/01/2023 23:06
I think I added a 350k hard limit |
_________________
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 16:02 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | .. max gap of around 145tv was ideal to him was what would box look like if we enacted that? And the answer is that we would largely end up with stunties only ever playing stunties |
Ok, what does this mean, then?
I don't see how a 145k gap limit would cause stunties to only play stunties
Or maybe do you mean because sometimes they might be at like 500k, and in the case where the cap was 145k... ?
Yes, they would only get games against other teams at up to 645k then (stunty or otherwise) so would have to not sink that low.
Mostly it's deliberate, eg that Spence team example was at 470k in its first game, but if they're that low due to CAS then they might have to do an early redraft
If the cap was 350k then the games then it's the same as currently, just applied all seasons instead of just season 1, which is probably a good idea
If we did have gap cap very very low, (I don't want it at 145k) then it could have an exception for matching below-1000k, or something.
So that a 900k team counts as 1000k for matching and also for cap purposes, maybe
Your original message on this:
| Quote: | | It's good you reference snotlings here btw, because one of the first things I thought when Matt started saying a max gap of around 145tv was ideal to him was what would box look like if we enacted that? And the answer is that we would largely end up with stunties only ever playing stunties (we're probably not even that far off as it is). And that begins to become an issue in s2 if you enforce a 350tv cap because certain rosters (the aforemention snotlings, or even "competitively" redrafted flings) might struggle to get anywhere near within a legal range of any other roster after redrafting. At least it would be an issue until their coaches gave up or other coaches begun the downwards movement to both snack on stunties and avoid older, bigger teams at season start. |
All teams have the option of redrafting to at least 1000k at any time, so I don't get the comment on struggling to get within legal range, or downward pressure
Flings are probably gonna keep their trees but not fussed about the rest of the roster. They could be redrafting at 1310k going into their second season, one of the highest TVs at the start of s2 if they want
I mean yea some of them would prefer to sit at 900k or whatever, but that's not a problem either really
Did you mean a 900k team in s2 won't get games, if we cap it?
But there'll be recently redrafted teams at 1100k or whatever |
Last edited by Sp00keh on Mar 18, 2025; edited 4 times in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 16:22 |
|
With or without TV cap, I don't think that lots of people would suddenly come and play in the Box.
This ruleset is not liked and userbase shrank as consequence.
Currently, the most common problem I face is failing draws with my Season 2+ teams because people play mostly Season 1 teams (according to my anecdotal experience in the Box, I could be wrong). Huge TV gaps have not been a common issue so far, but if they are a concern, a TV gap cap is an obvious idea (and frankly 350 TV cap seems ok to me, not too little, not too big). Would that reduce the possible match-ups? I don't think much, because most people don't play high TV teams at all. It would probably stop some odd big TV gap draws, but it would not be a drastical reduction of the game traffic overall, in my opinion.
That said, I experienced some mismatches even at very low TV due to minmaxed teams (Norse and Amazons) and I'd like more frequent player trimming (with shorter Season and/or lower Re-Draft budget), but anyway, it would still be hard to find games, because the culture of Season 1 teams has taken roots.
Today I played 2 games, yesterday 0 (and I activated 6 teams in the afternoon till 17:00 server time).
On top of that, the low TV games common nowadays are boring. Even when a game is found, is not that fun to play. |
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 20:18 |
|
I may be wrong and I do not have any experience with S2+ teams in blackbox at all, so beware of my oppinion.
What I see is we have BBT (and now IDT) that is bringing new S1 teams to blackbox every season. I guess people mainly play blackbox because of these tournaments.
So you can say the intended goal 'to increase traffic in blackbox' with those two competitions is achieved.
BUT only for S1 teams. So the question is, what could be done to achieve such a goal for S2+ teams as well... or even before that: Is there even a goal to increase blackbox traffic for S2+ teams.
I guess there are others that are more into the data who could answer the question about the overall games played on Fumbbl. What is the user demand, what are the preferences of which user group? And how big are thosue groups. Does the average Fumbbl user like to play S2+ teams at all? How big is the user group that invests many games to develop a big TV team?
@MattDakka: We all know your preferences from previous forum posts. (And it is a forum. It is meant to allow the exchange oppinions.) The question is: How relevant is your desired setting for league length, re-draft budget... and also in regards of S2+ blackbox matches compared to the whole community. And that is an open question, I do not have an answer to. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2025 - 20:37 |
|
The relevance of a guy who played 2501 Box games so far.
How much is worth my opinion it's up to you, but I contributed a lot to the Box traffic overall, that's an objective and measurable thing. This is why I expressed my opinions and ideas, suggested by my actual and direct experience in the Box environment.
About playing only Season 1 teams: well, why bothering to develop a Re-Draft system if it's not used, then?
I find that illogical, but it's me (unless developing a Re-Draft system was a sort of programming exercise for the sake of it, that would be a logical explanation).
In a logical world, teams should be played for more than 1 Season, as suggested by the game edition itself.
Otherwise, the edition should be more properly named: "Blood Bowl Season 1 and only". |
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2025 - 06:19 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | The relevance of a guy who played 2501 Box games so far.
..
Otherwise, the edition should be more properly named: "Blood Bowl Season 1 and only". |
I am only raising questions here. I am not the one who dismisses your oppinion... But two things related to your latest posting: You said it yourself: you are one guy. Maybe you play a lot, but you are nevertheless only one of many users and Fumbbl needs to consider the demands and wishes of all/most of them to a certain degree.
And regarding the naming of the current version of the the game: I have another understanding there. i do not believe that the name has anything to to with the intention of game designers to create a game explicitly designed for S2+ games. At least I do not think that the name, which is a version number IMO, indicates anything in that direction. But you are right, the rules include seasons, so season 2+ games are intented... But not as a focus I think. (And that is how I read your argument: The name as indication that the Focus should be on 2+ seasons.) |
_________________
|
|
MerryZ
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2025 - 08:34 |
|
Does second season box even need that much traffic ?
As its been said, all competitions are mainly season 1. After that its mainly for random games or building team for some tournaments ? So not really that serious games.
First season box is going well and thats good ?
If people want to build teams with history and play similar minded teams, theres loads of good leagues just for that ? |
_________________
Kaptain Awasoam, Dicer of All Men and Women and Children and Puppies. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2025 - 11:55 |
|
| CrisisChris wrote: |
I am only raising questions here. I am not the one who dismisses your oppinion... But two things related to your latest posting: You said it yourself: you are one guy. Maybe you play a lot, but you are nevertheless only one of many users and Fumbbl needs to consider the demands and wishes of all/most of them to a certain degree.
|
Yes, of course, I just wrote my ideas and opinions. Everybody can do the same. By the way, this site has not that many users. Right now I see 46 people online and only 4 matches in progress, so, relatively speaking, just one guy gets important if that guy plays more than many of the other few users. If I stopped playing the site would lose some game traffic. When you can't find games due to lack of users the site loses appeal and a downward spiral can start.
It's not a site with thousands of people playing, consider that, and it doesn't seem to grow either.
I like to play Season 2+ teams and right now I struggle to find more than 2 games in the afternoon (wasting time with failed draws). With Re-Draft I thought it would have been easier to find games, due to teams being closer TV each other, but I was wrong. People seem to play more Season 1 teams.
| CrisisChris wrote: |
But you are right, the rules include seasons, so season 2+ games are intented... But not as a focus I think. (And that is how I read your argument: The name as indication that the Focus should be on 2+ seasons.) |
If that were the case and Season 2+ were not the focus, for competitive Box playing the NAF resurrection, no progression format would be better.
Even if a Season 1 team doesn't have as many skills as a Season 2+ team, the possibility of earning skills, losing players etc. adds variance to the competition. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2025 - 12:28 |
|
| MerryZ wrote: | Does second season box even need that much traffic ?
As its been said, all competitions are mainly season 1. After that its mainly for random games or building team for some tournaments ? So not really that serious games.
First season box is going well and thats good ?
If people want to build teams with history and play similar minded teams, theres loads of good leagues just for that ? |
I think that is a sad way of looking at it.
If it doesn't get traffic it will die.
Are we letting S2+ die so that S1 can thrive?
For me it seemed that a lot of the buzz and chatter around Fumbbl used to be around the bigger teams and the Majors.
Now the community seems quieter. Is there any buzz around the Majors?
Telling people to go play [L]eague diminishes Fumbbl IMO.
There is no Box in League and it is harder to get an open game.
So really, you are talking about fewer games on Fumbbl as a whole.
You could end up with fewer coaches total because the speed of getting a game and the quality of the matchups are factors in whether people stick around at all.
Fumbbl then becomes less of a league and more of a platform.
An S1 league. A barely breathing S2+ league ad everyone else divided between various [L] division leagues.
Not so great for the "community".
Ideally, people would play some S1, S2+ and [L]. But it seems to me that the current rules + seasons don't really work that well for [C] S2+.
Silk purse. Sow's ear.
Though, the patient may be ill, you don't have to actively murder it. |
_________________
20 Year Anniversary! - 2016 Nostalgia Bowl - Coming April! -- All Star Bowl - Always recruiting! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2025 - 12:59 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | "]But it seems to me that the current rules don't really work that well |
Fixed that for you 
Hopefully the new edition fixes some key problems. Team building is far too cookie cutter. I don't think there's anything christer can do to fix this. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
BB with seasons, mat...
Search
