2024
2019
2018
2018-02-07 22:00:16
rating 5.8
17 coaches online • Server time: 04:56
* * * Did you know? The player with the strongest arm is Cherrystone Hotpack with 5758 yards passed.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnomes are great! | Coach Standing | New special rule for... |
2024-07-05 01:33:40
21 votes, rating 2.4
21 votes, rating 2.4
I HATE MIN/MAXING!!
Do i really have to start doing it myself? Im getting tired meeting a skilled team against my fresh team, you know people now try the skill roulette and if the skill is bad they off the player to keep their TV low in the Black box.. I hate it.. its not overskilled teams but 3-5 good correct skills which gives them the edge no matter what inducement or whatever... Meating dorfs with 2 guards 1 mighty blow and block on runner in first or 2nd game is just shit..
Comments
Posted by Habeli on 2024-07-05 08:03:29
Dwarves are annoying no matter what =)
Posted by MerryZ on 2024-07-05 08:29:13
Come to play with big bois with us in Royal Rookie Rumbles.
No silly draws or unfair teams.
All paired on games won.
No silly draws or unfair teams.
All paired on games won.
Posted by MerryZ on 2024-07-05 08:30:57
Also 2 spots open on next draw !
Posted by Rawlf on 2024-07-05 09:42:50
Min/maxing is implied in TV matchmaking. If you want to play in box, you have to embrace it. Alternatives beyond RRR would be gamefinder or leagues.
Posted by Joost on 2024-07-05 11:54:37
But it's true that the bb2020 rules enable even more minmaxing by doing lower TV cost for randomly generated skills. That rule would be second out of the door if I was redesigning the game (and back to the much more thrilling old system of rolling 2d6). First thing out of the door is of course removal of the wildly inaccurate pass.
Posted by MattDakka on 2024-07-05 13:08:35
I try to play in the 1400-1600 range with older-than-15-games teams and minmaxing is not an issue (you could find a super farmed GF team activated in the Box but it's not very common). You could try that. The drawback is that finding a game is a bit harder, but I consider that worth it.
That said, with incoming Season Re-Draft minmaxing will get even more common, with cheap random skills and people playing even more strong starting tier 1 teams at low TV.
Norse taking random skills on Linemen and played without Blitzers, for example, are a super minmaxable team.
That said, with incoming Season Re-Draft minmaxing will get even more common, with cheap random skills and people playing even more strong starting tier 1 teams at low TV.
Norse taking random skills on Linemen and played without Blitzers, for example, are a super minmaxable team.
Posted by Gartch on 2024-07-05 13:32:26
I hate it too, but given that Black Box pairing is based on TV, I do it too. In 2016 rules and before I did not do it, aka I developped my teams like if I was in scheduled league, but I was often at disadvantage because of that like you explained in your blog.
I would prefer a pairing based on number of matchs played by the teams, but most coachs on Fumbbl prefer TV based pairing.
I would prefer a pairing based on number of matchs played by the teams, but most coachs on Fumbbl prefer TV based pairing.
Posted by MattDakka on 2024-07-05 14:53:57
There is rookie protection. Teams with 0-15 games can be paired only with other teams with 0-15 games.
The problem of pairing teams based on number of matches is that it reduces the chance of teams being paired.
Also, it's not a good system, because an Elf team with 100 games has less developed players than a Dwarf or Orc team with 100 games. Some races lose often players and, even if they have many games played, they don't necessarily are developed as much as the number of games would suggest.
The problem of pairing teams based on number of matches is that it reduces the chance of teams being paired.
Also, it's not a good system, because an Elf team with 100 games has less developed players than a Dwarf or Orc team with 100 games. Some races lose often players and, even if they have many games played, they don't necessarily are developed as much as the number of games would suggest.
Posted by Gartch on 2024-07-05 16:15:21
Hi MattDakka!
1)The rookie protection just means that teams under 15 matchs are paired together BUT based on their TV, not their number of matchs. I would prefer a system where the number of match is the criteria to pair teams.
2)I don't understand why pairing teams based on number of matchs would reduce the chance of teams being paired: in the actual system, the teams are not paired only if they have the exact same TV, there are often difference of TV between the 2 teams. That would be the same with a pairing based on number of matchs played: maybe one team has played 1 or 2 more matchs, but in my eyes it's fairer than to play a new team versus a 14 games team just because it is minmaxed with skills stacked on few players.
3)For the teams with 100 matchs: I think the game is not designed for these teams, so I think you can not hope for balance for these teams. Maybe the season system would mitigate the problem, I don't know.
Also you say it's fairer for 100+ matchs teams to make pairing based on TV but I see some coachs complaining in the forum about some teams with few stat freaks players stacking a lot of skills or stat increases, some of them are designed for OTTD. Now you can argue anyone can build this kind of players, but when this player is killed, what do you do? I guess until you rebuild a new stat freak you have to face teams with stat freaks without having one, I assume you are at disadvantage then.
1)The rookie protection just means that teams under 15 matchs are paired together BUT based on their TV, not their number of matchs. I would prefer a system where the number of match is the criteria to pair teams.
2)I don't understand why pairing teams based on number of matchs would reduce the chance of teams being paired: in the actual system, the teams are not paired only if they have the exact same TV, there are often difference of TV between the 2 teams. That would be the same with a pairing based on number of matchs played: maybe one team has played 1 or 2 more matchs, but in my eyes it's fairer than to play a new team versus a 14 games team just because it is minmaxed with skills stacked on few players.
3)For the teams with 100 matchs: I think the game is not designed for these teams, so I think you can not hope for balance for these teams. Maybe the season system would mitigate the problem, I don't know.
Also you say it's fairer for 100+ matchs teams to make pairing based on TV but I see some coachs complaining in the forum about some teams with few stat freaks players stacking a lot of skills or stat increases, some of them are designed for OTTD. Now you can argue anyone can build this kind of players, but when this player is killed, what do you do? I guess until you rebuild a new stat freak you have to face teams with stat freaks without having one, I assume you are at disadvantage then.
Posted by MattDakka on 2024-07-05 17:31:03
Hi Gartch!
1) As far as I know, teams under 15 matches are paired by TV and by number of matches, if possible.
TV has the priority but number of matches is taken into account as well. I don't think that a new team can be paired with a 14-game team. It could be a new team vs another one with 3-4 games played, but not with such a big difference. I could be wrong, but when I checked the pairings I noticed that new teams tend to be close in terms of TV and games played too.
2) Most people play at low TV teams of 15 games or less. Other people play teams for more, so, there could be a situation where 2 teams of same TV are activated: one with 40 games, another with 60 games, for example. If we take into account TV and close number of games then that draw would not happen due to games played difference. So, taking into account TV and number of games would actually reduce the change of 2 teams being paired. It's not a site with hundreds of teams activated and it's very hard to perfectly pair teams with same TV and same (or very close) numbers of games played. To have the kind of pairing you want we would need way more teams activated each draw, 10 or more.
3) The game is supposed to be played with Season Re-Draft and it should come soon.
I didn't say it's fairer to pair by TV, I just pointed out that number of games played doesn't NECESSARILY mean that the teams will be on even ground in terms of players' development, because some teams lose often players, other ones don't.
About the stat freaks: when a stat freak dies, I just rebuild a new one. This is BB and players are supposed to get crippled or die, eventually. I don't remake the teams, I keep on playing the same team, with or without stat freak, enjoying the rollercoaster. The problem, when a stat freak dies, is that, due to rookie protection, if a team older than 15 games drops too much in TV (1300 or lower) it could not find a game in the Box. Then there are 2 options: making a new team or playing a recovery game on GF.
Personally I didn't struggle a lot due to minmaxing when a stat freak died. Maybe a hard match-up can happen, but amen. The real problem is finding games to rebuild the team. I can play hard games and lose them, eventually I will rebuild a new freak, the real problem is finding a game in the Box.
With Season Re-Draft there will be a "TV compression" towards low-mid and finding games with older-than-15-games teams should get a bit easier, in theory.
1) As far as I know, teams under 15 matches are paired by TV and by number of matches, if possible.
TV has the priority but number of matches is taken into account as well. I don't think that a new team can be paired with a 14-game team. It could be a new team vs another one with 3-4 games played, but not with such a big difference. I could be wrong, but when I checked the pairings I noticed that new teams tend to be close in terms of TV and games played too.
2) Most people play at low TV teams of 15 games or less. Other people play teams for more, so, there could be a situation where 2 teams of same TV are activated: one with 40 games, another with 60 games, for example. If we take into account TV and close number of games then that draw would not happen due to games played difference. So, taking into account TV and number of games would actually reduce the change of 2 teams being paired. It's not a site with hundreds of teams activated and it's very hard to perfectly pair teams with same TV and same (or very close) numbers of games played. To have the kind of pairing you want we would need way more teams activated each draw, 10 or more.
3) The game is supposed to be played with Season Re-Draft and it should come soon.
I didn't say it's fairer to pair by TV, I just pointed out that number of games played doesn't NECESSARILY mean that the teams will be on even ground in terms of players' development, because some teams lose often players, other ones don't.
About the stat freaks: when a stat freak dies, I just rebuild a new one. This is BB and players are supposed to get crippled or die, eventually. I don't remake the teams, I keep on playing the same team, with or without stat freak, enjoying the rollercoaster. The problem, when a stat freak dies, is that, due to rookie protection, if a team older than 15 games drops too much in TV (1300 or lower) it could not find a game in the Box. Then there are 2 options: making a new team or playing a recovery game on GF.
Personally I didn't struggle a lot due to minmaxing when a stat freak died. Maybe a hard match-up can happen, but amen. The real problem is finding games to rebuild the team. I can play hard games and lose them, eventually I will rebuild a new freak, the real problem is finding a game in the Box.
With Season Re-Draft there will be a "TV compression" towards low-mid and finding games with older-than-15-games teams should get a bit easier, in theory.
Posted by SteelMerchant on 2024-07-05 19:04:01
all im going to say about this is this badpublicity: "You are banging your head against a brick wall"
Posted by koadah on 2024-07-05 19:18:47
Christer has run this site for more than 20 years.
Experience suggests that though some people may say that they prefer a certain thing, most people probably won't.
Experience suggests that though some people may say that they prefer a certain thing, most people probably won't.
Posted by Gartch on 2024-07-06 00:48:16
To Koadah: that's exactly what I said in my first message: I think the majority prefer TV pairing, and so I understand that TV pairing is used.
But I also think that TV pairing leads more often to unfair matchs. And that leads to behavior, minmaxing, that are different of what you see in scheduled league (what I consider the "normal" Blood Bowl, what that rules of BB are designed for). I would prefer that Black Box try to mimic as much as possible (even if I know it can't be the same) scheduled league, one reason is I think minmaxing leads to less diversity between the teams, but I understand some other persons may prefer it is completly different.
To MattDakka:
1)I didn't know number of matchs was a criteria. Sometimes I see matchs with a large difference in number of matchs like 2 matchs team vs 8 matchs team or more.
2)I don't understand your argument, you could have 2 teams with close number of matchs with high TV difference which could not be paired with current system. Now you will tell me if the TV difference is too wide, it's unfair, but maybe it's too wide because one team is minmaxed and the other is not. Also in scheduled league, you play vs a team with same number of matchs, no matter the TV difference.
But I also think that TV pairing leads more often to unfair matchs. And that leads to behavior, minmaxing, that are different of what you see in scheduled league (what I consider the "normal" Blood Bowl, what that rules of BB are designed for). I would prefer that Black Box try to mimic as much as possible (even if I know it can't be the same) scheduled league, one reason is I think minmaxing leads to less diversity between the teams, but I understand some other persons may prefer it is completly different.
To MattDakka:
1)I didn't know number of matchs was a criteria. Sometimes I see matchs with a large difference in number of matchs like 2 matchs team vs 8 matchs team or more.
2)I don't understand your argument, you could have 2 teams with close number of matchs with high TV difference which could not be paired with current system. Now you will tell me if the TV difference is too wide, it's unfair, but maybe it's too wide because one team is minmaxed and the other is not. Also in scheduled league, you play vs a team with same number of matchs, no matter the TV difference.
Posted by koadah on 2024-07-06 02:15:46
Ah. I assumed that you hadn't as if you had there wouldn't be much point still discussing it. ;)
Six hours is plenty of time for an old feller to forget what was said earlier. ;)
Six hours is plenty of time for an old feller to forget what was said earlier. ;)
Posted by MattDakka on 2024-07-06 16:50:41
To Gartch: TV is used primarily, but number of matches is taken into account as well.
A 2-match team could not be necessarily worse than an 8-match team, by the way. The 8-match team could have suffered some Casualties and not be as strong.
2) TV is used primarily, this is why big TV gaps are less common than small TV gaps.
Big TV gaps are perceived as unfair by people so the scheduler tries to avoid them.
I agree about the scheduled league, but it's hard to mime a scheduled league with a MM system. You should consider that, in order to find games quickly without playing in a scheduled league, the compromise is trying to match the teams in the best way for a MM environment. There are not enough teams activated to have pairings by same TV and same number of games played. The closest thing you can have for that is the Box Trophy, with teams old max 15 games being paired.
That said, let's consider the scheduled league scenario: do you think that TV 1000 Chaos with 0 games played vs TV 1000 Amazons with 0 games played is a balanced match-up?
I mean, even normal scheduled leagues are not that balanced either. Some teams don't need to play many games because they start strong, other ones are weak. You can actually minmax Norse in a normal scheduled league, if you want. It doesn't happen only in the Box.
A 2-match team could not be necessarily worse than an 8-match team, by the way. The 8-match team could have suffered some Casualties and not be as strong.
2) TV is used primarily, this is why big TV gaps are less common than small TV gaps.
Big TV gaps are perceived as unfair by people so the scheduler tries to avoid them.
I agree about the scheduled league, but it's hard to mime a scheduled league with a MM system. You should consider that, in order to find games quickly without playing in a scheduled league, the compromise is trying to match the teams in the best way for a MM environment. There are not enough teams activated to have pairings by same TV and same number of games played. The closest thing you can have for that is the Box Trophy, with teams old max 15 games being paired.
That said, let's consider the scheduled league scenario: do you think that TV 1000 Chaos with 0 games played vs TV 1000 Amazons with 0 games played is a balanced match-up?
I mean, even normal scheduled leagues are not that balanced either. Some teams don't need to play many games because they start strong, other ones are weak. You can actually minmax Norse in a normal scheduled league, if you want. It doesn't happen only in the Box.