koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Apr 12, 2025 - 19:39 |
 
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2025 - 20:46 |
|
Ok yea, 'acceptable' varies depending on your expectations. I realise BB is niche so my expectations from GW are pretty low
Economically it doesn't make loads of sense to employ the equivalent of chess grandmasters to design a game for which GW seem to treat as a beer and pretzels kinda thing sometimes
I think BB is actually an amazing game, otherwise I wouldn't still be here / playing it
But I think its quality comes from its central design, the parts that haven't changed in a long time
The current rules are just ... kinda irrelevant in that. They haven't changed the core of the game, so I am not angry at GW
I think BB2020 has its problems, yes. But CRP/LRB did too, and some of those were worse
Also, part of the appeal of the game to me is that it isn't a solved problem
There's no optimal team, no optimal gameplay style. That's rare in something with this much userbase
But that also means, there's no such thing as an optimal 'expert' who could design the game for GW
It's still very subjective. and it depends on environment you're playing in, etc.
I'm not crediting the rules writers there; I think it's a bit accidental, but for me its a good result, it shows the game has longevity / depth
And yes @koadah .. one of the things that I don't like about current BB is that GW seem continually compelled to give each new release its own unique rules
Which drives sales? i guess? or they think it does
But is bad for new players because it continually adds to the pile of rules they have to learn. Things like Trickster, Pick Me Up, Hit And Run, etc are just 'gotcha' rules that will screw over players who aren't familar with them, and the game doesn't need them |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2025 - 21:45 |
|
^ which all brings us full circle too...
We cannot controll the rules. And some things are completely broken currently. So how do we mitigate those issue... things like high TV vampires for example. Or min maxed low TV zons etc..
I think using TS to match up might be the best way to mitigate the problems... maybe the only way. But then we'd need to work on a good TS system. I think nelphine has started something similar to ts, to a certain extent, and it good be a basis to build upon...
I've yet to see a better suggestion. Or any that would address this editions issues |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on Apr 12, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2025 - 21:47 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | @Chingis "5-game team plays a 14-game team"
If it's your vamp team, they were at 1230k with 6 skillups, opponent was at 1185k with 10 skillups
This is a totally reasonable matchup imo |
The example wasn't that team, it was my human team 'Taxidermy' for what it's worth. Who have subsequently had a couple of extra matches against opponents more closely matched in development, age differences not so outrageous. Woohoo! 
(but the specific isn't particularly important, it was just an example of the sort of thing)
Anyway, I appreciate your reponse but it doesn't really answer the issue. Fundamentally to me a "fair" match against a like team in a season context (and where it'll really make the most of that seasonal feeling) is one where you're always playing against a team that's had the same opportunity for development as your own. I'm less worried about whether or not they've taken advantage of that equal opportunity the same, worse or (usually!) better than me. What's important is that we've had the same opportunity. Which means games played (especially important early on, with games-played gaps becoming more tolerable the older the team gets).
So to say that you think that any team match-up was fair just by looking at the teams TV and skills as they stand before match day is absolutely fine, nothing wrong with that! But you're basically saying that you don't care about the opportunity that teams have had to get to that point, only what the team actually looks like. Again, there's nothing wrong with not caring about that opportunity factor, but it doesn't really address the fact that I do care, and I hope I've somewhat raised the argument of why I care, even if it doesn't bother other people or if they're looking for a different experience playing a team for a season to the experience I'd hope for in a perfect world.  |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2025 - 23:28 |
|
Disagree
If you're seeking 'fair' matchups, then opportunity is a terrible way to measure teams
I had 5 games and my players all died, but you had 5 games and developed nicely... etc - awful matchup
In a tabletop league we would be forced to deal with inconsistencies around development, across the rounds as the teams grow
But [C] has the advantage of being de-coupled from that, we don't need to stick to opportunity as a measure of development
Instead, we can match by TV, which is (flawed but ultimately) more useful |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 00:14 |
|
I thought this distinction was clear from my previous post so I'm sorry to be insistent, but you can't really disagree about the reality of someone else's definition of what is fair, or what their preferred matchmaking experience would be.
You can say it doesn't match yours, you can advocate for your preference (and please do!), but you can't dispute the fact that their preference is what it is. That's some sort of category error. |
|
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 00:17 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | Yea, it was interesting to see what it did, but probably switched off as it just caused moaning about matchups 
Also maybe people used it to try and dodge certain opponents
MNGs are a good point
If I'm at 10 gamesplayed but then have 3 expensive players MNG so am knocked back down to 980k or something, I'd want to face another similar low-TV opponent. Not a team at 1300k |
You may want to face a similar low tv opponent, but those are some of the most mismatched games that occur. Because when a couple of your positionals are mng, lowering your tv, but you have a couple of other players with stacked skills already you are at a rather large advantage over the rookie team a lot of the time.
A chaos team missing a chosen blocker, but with a developed killer and a developed ball carrier, are going to be very favored against a straight rookie chaos team that has all its chosen, even though the tv difference may be small. Because not all tv is created equal, and skill stacked on one player are greater than the sum of their parts. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 08:38 |
|
| Drrek wrote: | | Sp00keh wrote: | Yea, it was interesting to see what it did, but probably switched off as it just caused moaning about matchups
Also maybe people used it to try and dodge certain opponents
MNGs are a good point
If I'm at 10 gamesplayed but then have 3 expensive players MNG so am knocked back down to 980k or something, I'd want to face another similar low-TV opponent. Not a team at 1300k |
You may want to face a similar low tv opponent, but those are some of the most mismatched games that occur. Because when a couple of your positionals are mng, lowering your tv, but you have a couple of other players with stacked skills already you are at a rather large advantage over the rookie team a lot of the time.
A chaos team missing a chosen blocker, but with a developed killer and a developed ball carrier, are going to be very favored against a straight rookie chaos team that has all its chosen, even though the tv difference may be small. Because not all tv is created equal, and skill stacked on one player are greater than the sum of their parts. |
Exactly... and the only solution to that is using TS. Using number of games played just throws up too many unreliable match ups of a different sort. TV match making is the worst its been since TR match making.... as TV no longer functions as it was created to work.. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
BB with seasons, mat...
Search
