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.. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 10:07 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 10:44 |
|
| koadah wrote: | How often are there enough teams in the draw for this discussion to matter at all?
Unless you want to use the new measure to award inducements.
Which Christer won't do.
TR is interesting as it would hit teams saving for stats or delaying skilling until after redraft. |
Haha that is funny, TR would actually impact the min makers fairly heavily.. but its also a deeply flawed measure.
In terms of blackbox numbers.. the ts formula would help I'd rather never play with a rookie or 1 or 2 game team vs a 10 game zone team that's sitting at 950 TV with a bunch of skills. Currently you get these match ups and they are not fun in the slightest... the games are formalities.
I dunno though. I have no desire to ever play season 2 + having seen what the meta looks like. Maybe this edition is just fundamentally too broken to work in blackbox.. ts would help keep some min maxed vamps etc .. at a higher ts but then you'd just get vamps ru ming round with wizard every game.
I think its very telling that league is doing so well, out performing the main division.. especially as a number of the biggest leagues use 2016 skilling up still and stat costs |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on Apr 13, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 10:44 |
|
| koadah wrote: | How often are there enough teams in the draw for this discussion to matter at all?
Unless you want to use the new measure to award inducements.
Which Christer won't do. |
I guess that is heading in the right direction.
Just to make this clear... at least as clear as I got it. We have three options:
A. TV as it is used today
B. TS which would be calculated a bit differently (randoms at full price, maybe +MA more expensive, etc.)
C. Matching based on number of games played
Each of the alternatives has its advantages and also disadvantages. But does it really mean there is only black and white?
Christer once mentioned that the matching algorithm includes a case to make double matches less probable.
So why not think about including TS and games played as additional conditions? |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 10:52 |
|
| CrisisChris wrote: | | koadah wrote: | How often are there enough teams in the draw for this discussion to matter at all?
Unless you want to use the new measure to award inducements.
Which Christer won't do. |
I guess that is heading in the right direction.
Just to make this clear... at least as clear as I got it. We have three options:
A. TV as it is used today
B. TS which would be calculated a bit differently (randoms at full price, maybe +MA more expensive, etc.)
C. Matching based on number of games played
Each of the alternatives has its advantages and also disadvantages. But does it really mean there is only black and white?
Christer once mentioned that the matching algorithm includes a case to make double matches less probable.
So why not think about including TS and games played as additional conditions? |
I don't think games played is be needed, as there is already a "seasons" protection in the algorithm. Plus you can make a number of the teams to be crazy broken in season 1 within 2 games... so a games limit wouldn't work.
Matching by tv primarily, with the existing caveats around mirror matches and consecutive games vs the same coach, and then TS as a secondary protection would be the best way to go... then you could probably remove games played and seasons all together from the conditions, because TS would already protect against completely unbalanced games to a certain extent |
_________________
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 11:34 |
|
I thought of it like a three step case condition: where games played will be only used in case there are two or more potential matches based on the first two conditions. But maybe you are right and this does not need to be considered at all. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 12:20 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2025 - 12:38 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
In terms of blackbox numbers.. the ts formula would help I'd rather never play with a rookie or 1 or 2 game team vs a 10 game zone team that's sitting at 950 TV with a bunch of skills. Currently you get these match ups and they are not fun in the slightest... the games are formalities. |
You do not need TS for that. We have had rookie protection in the past and I don't know why it was removed.
Maybe it was restricting too many games.
| Garion wrote: |
I dunno though. I have no desire to ever play season 2 + having seen what the meta looks like. Maybe this edition is just fundamentally too broken to work in blackbox.. ts would help keep some min maxed vamps etc .. at a higher ts but then you'd just get vamps ru ming round with wizard every game. |
S2+ is being actively discouraged. Seasons, BBT, IDT all act against S2+.
A lot of the people who would have made it fun have gone or only/mostly play league. 
| Garion wrote: |
I think its very telling that league is doing so well, out performing the main division.. especially as a number of the biggest leagues use 2016 skilling up still and stat costs |
Also, lot of people are playing res. Some are playing draft leagues. My next one will be full 2016 rules 
The rules are not designed for Fumbbl [C] nor will they be. So there is no real reason to expect them to work for it. |
_________________
20 Year Anniversary! - 2016 Nostalgia Bowl - Weds 23rd April! -- All Star Bowl - Always recruiting! |
|
|
|
| |
BB with seasons, mat...
Search
