Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
Mar 21, 2025 - 21:32 |
 
|
Yea they do scale very well
Java's team finished its season2 at 1950k, presumably prepping for tournament to push that high
The only vamp team I've played in season2 is at 1570k after 5 games of s2
I am curious if vamps will be stronger or weaker in major tournaments after redraft was implemented, compared to before
My guess is stronger, as other rosters can't really grow fast enough. maybe elves could |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 21, 2025 - 23:14 |
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 22, 2025 - 10:00 |
|
I do not have a speadsheet for all the games played  I only have very limited experience playing some matches against LIKs vamps with my elves and to me it feels exactly like that: At low tv it is possible to win against vamps. But as soon as they exceed 1500 / 1550 it becomes more and more difficult.
But I need to say that the growing vamp teams goes hand in hand with growing coach experience. So my conception may be biased. |
_________________
 |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 22, 2025 - 15:45 |
|
Well vamp’s main failure conditions are running out of rerolls, running out of thralls
And you can fix these problems by buying more, which grows the team |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2025 - 10:54 |
|
Also worth noting is there are an unmeasurable number of games by people that are learning how vampires actually work. How Blood Lust works now... etc...
I know I've played a larger number of games against coaches that dont know what they are doing with vamps, and it is very telling... Than against coaches that know how to use vamps. The times you play against coaches that know what they are doing with this team - there's very little you can do other than hope they fail some rolls and hope you start removing their opposing players very FAST. |
_________________
 |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 25, 2025 - 18:28 |
|
The discussion seems to be mainly around how to tweak TV matchup and caps and so on.
But, why are we TV matching in the first place?
I'd suggest it's because in an eternal format (which the game wasn't really designed around to be fair) you end up with wildly differing teams in the same pool. TV matching is a way to match to make that seem a bit fairer and pitch like teams against like teams.
But in an established season/re-draft system where teams get regularly clipped down, does that still hold? I'm not sure it does. In that format "like teams" are those at the same points in their season (i.e. how many matches out of 15 they've played). With the exception really of season one, because you start from a different baseline than the redraft cap.
So while splitting off S1 teams from all others seems sensible, why should TV have anything to do with matchmaking? Within the two pools: S1 teams and S2+ teams, why not matchmake based on games played in the current season rather than based on TV?
It also mimics more closely a tabletop league in matchmaking terms, but within our online format where teams join and play games at different rates.
TV matching was necessary because of the magnitude of variation possible between teams in a truly infinite format where games played tends towards a big number. Re-draft clips that possible discrepancy. It is already in itself a form of TV boundary. But only when teams are at the same point in the season. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 25, 2025 - 18:49 |
|
| Chingis wrote: |
Within the two pools: S1 teams and S2+ teams, why not matchmake based on games played in the current season rather than based on TV? |
If you mean pairing teams by the exact same games' number (Season 2+ team with 3 games played paired with Season 2+ team with 3 games played), I don't think it would be possible, because the site has not many users activating and not many Season 2+ teams compared to Season 1 teams.
It would be very hard to match teams if the same number of games played were the criterion.
It could work if game brackets were used instead, so, Season 2+ teams with 0-7 games played paired with Season 2+ teams with 0-7 games played and Season 2+ teams with 8-14 games paired with Season 2+ teams with 8-14 games.
Personally I'd like to use both criteria, TV and brackets of games played, giving priority to TV and then using game brackets to further refine the pairing, whenever possible.
If the TVs are close but the brackets are different, the teams are still paired (so, pairing by TV would override pairing by game brackets).
This to make draws more likely.
Let's not forget that, as it inaccurate it may be, TV is generally a better way to measure a team's strength than number of games played.
For example, a team with 14 games played could have 3 MNGs players and be worse than a freshly redrafted team with 0 games played. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 26, 2025 - 00:37 |
|
No, in the same way as TV-matching doesn't only pair teams of exactly the same TV value, matching by season games wouldn't have to match exactly. Just that season games would be the difference you'd aim to minimise, rather than aiming to minimise TV difference. |
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 26, 2025 - 07:37 |
|
I would buy this. I do Not know if it really means a big difference to the introduction of a maximum TV gap for S2+ teams, but I like the idea beeing closer to a league. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Chainsaw Tactics
Search
