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 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. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Apr 07, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
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. |
_________________
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 07, 2025 - 17:08 |
|
(I suppose a different way to put this is that game-played-matching, instead of TV-matching, would be an anti-"picking" measure. Blackbox was envisioned as a division where you face all-comers. Sure, you can't pick exactly which team you face, but if you are the sort of player who goes in for careful 'management' of your TV value, you can pick what *types* of team you will face.
If you match by games played, then if you have 13 games played, you *are* facing that other 13-game team in your next match regardless. The only difference is whether your TV will be in your base team or in the inducements received. There still will be an incentive to decide whether you want to 'carry' your TV in your team or your inducements, but it won't *also* enable you to choose what type of team you face next.) |
|
|
BeanBelly
Joined: Nov 14, 2019
|
| Posted:
Apr 07, 2025 - 21:24 |
|
@chingis you can’t pick the ‘type’ of team you play in Box. Well I can’t - perhaps I’m missing a trick! You can choose to play one of the stronger rosters; there’s a dozen or so rosters I feel I could do well enough with. I’m not a sanguine coach who could play gobbo and stay sane, sounds like Malmir isn’t either!
There is good clear advice in the help section on how to build your team, so anyone here should be able to build a competitive team without TV bloat.
Matching immediately and solely on games played - my guess is some teams would rapidly fail. Getting beat down pretty quickly, it won’t be pleasant for coaches on that slippery slope. Sounds like a crushing experience for newbies; or anyone at a disadvantage.
TV matching gives some protection, say you have important players MNG, you can get a recovery match at a lower TV. Get your momentum and mojo back. |
_________________
Painting myself into a corner |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 07, 2025 - 22:52 |
|
When I say the 'type' of team, I mean the TV level. You can choose to face teams of a particular TV: you don't know exactly how they'll have *spent* that TV, but you know what their TV will be: there are lots of very strong assumptions you can make about that level of team and you can build your own team accordingly.
It might be that your team got smashed up, or it might be that you deliberately chose to keep a low TV for "efficiency" purposes, but either way, who is on the other side of that match? Sure, for you it's a nice 'recovery' match, but for a fresh-out-of-the-box TV 1000 opponent it's a game against a team that may have tools that they simply could not have as a new team (guard, block maybe, tackle-MB, blodge, choose your favourite bugbear for your particular team). Sure the rest of the team might be beaten up, but you're still facing a team that has individual things you couldn't ever have, or have counters to: not because you chose not to, or failed to progress your team, but because you didn't even have the opportunity yet.
I appreciate it's a subjective thing, but personally that seems more "feels bad", that we aren't equivalent teams: when we haven't had the same _opportunities_ to build, less whether we actually _have_ built our teams in particular ways or not (deliberately or through being rubbish!). If I've got no tackle half way through the season, that's my fault, I can live with the consequences whether I've chosen it or just not got enough SPP: if I've got no tackle at the beginning of the season, less so, regardless of what the TV says.
And don't forget inducements exist. Every match is automatically equal TV, because of inducements! Now, you may say "But TV is a crappy measure of actual inducement strength!" and I'd agree. But "normal" TV is not perfect in that regard either! At least equal-age teams have both had the same opportunity as each other to develop within that environment, flawed as the metric may be.
Apart from anything else it seems to me in theory it ought to encourage more diversity of tools: if you know your team is 1200 and will only face similar teams, there might be things that 1600 teams can do but you know that you'll never have to face, so you can exclude that from your thoughts of counter-tools you might meed. If you know you might face a range of team TVs at the end of the season (with varying levels of inducements to make up the gap) it changes the incentives: there's more things you have to consider.
Like I say, I appreciate that some of that is just my preference! There is objectively more possibility for making choices to bias what team you face next in a TV-matching system than a game-matching one though. You have some control over your TV, but you can't change your games played! |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 08, 2025 - 00:05 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Sure, for you it's a nice 'recovery' match, but for a fresh-out-of-the-box TV 1000 opponent it's a game against a team that may have tools that they simply could not have as a new team [...] |
A fresh-out-of-the-box TV 1000 team benefits from rookie protection and can only be paired with Season 1 teams.
It's unlikely it will face a way more developed team (and for sure, not a Season 2+ team).
What you say it's rather a problem of Season 2+ teams facing more developed Season 2+, with stat freaks and/or more skills. |
|
|
|
|
| |
BB with seasons, mat...
Search
