Mvp + rank information

Hi,
May it be possible to add a system to choose mvp (random of 3 player choose by the player), it's a common rule for many players on table. It's better to help some team who need to up just good players (like vampires), level up player at 5/6 spp for example and avoid to give spp at a zombie/rotters...
My second idea is for the managing of the rank : may it be possible to add a button to see directly the teams of a player selected ? see the team selected too ?
Nice game 🙂

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

That MVP rule is the new BB2016 rules. BB2 is based on CRP in which the MVP is random among the entire team. I wouldn't be averse to changing to BB2016, but all of it rather than just a couple of rules.

Not sure what you mean by the second bit. Do you mean all of a coach's teams? I think you can do that already.

Yes the rules should be changed to the BB2016... I heard something about "cards" than increase the random... those should be avoided... it's enough random as it is already.

Based on what I heard many people express, including Jimmy Fantastic... the inducements don't come close to balance the TV differences. This fact come much more apparent in the online leauges. It's now a rush to play as many matches as possible right after the championship qualifier reset, and an adjustment of the inducements are highly needed!! The benefit of having the most developed team is just too great now. So big it's a joke...

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

The benefit of having the higher TV team isn't as great as you might think.

I'd be content with a change to BB2016, but I can't see it happening. If they do it then they need to do all of it, though, and that includes the cards.

Dode74, I trust Jimmy Fantastic more than you... and if you sleep on it... you know the inducement problem yourself... And why is there the crazy rush to play many battles just after the reset. EVERYBODY knows about this... and you don't?

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm asking you to look at the data given in the link. Personally I trust the data more than I trust my, your, or anyone else's opinion. That analysis wasn't by me, it was by schlice.

For example, looking at completed games only, an even match sees about 40% of games won by the home team, about 40% won by the away team and about 20% of games ending in a tie. If instead you look at games where the home team has a +400 TV advantage, about 50% of games are won by the home team, 30% by the away team and 20% are tied.
...
What the right hand figure tells us is that inducements provide a reasonably good balancing mechanic. Differences in TV provide only marginal changes to win probability; even at the extremes a team with +500 TV will only win about 60% of games that aren’t tied.

Yes, there's a rush - the link showed that too. The perception that something is happening is not the same as the reality of it happening.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

I heard something about "cards" than increase the random... those should be avoided... it's enough random as it is already.

This assumes we want to make Blood Bowl a more "competitive" game, and I'm not sure that's necessarily the best course of action. The board game wasn't created to be the competitive beast many people take it to be these days, it was meant to be fun and laughs to have with buddies. The more absurdity and randomness involved the more it plays into that idea, and I suspect people would have more fun if they weren't so caught up in the competitive aspect.

@dode74 said in Mvp + rank information:

The benefit of having the higher TV team isn't as great as you might think.

Keeping in mind that those graphs are based on CCL's shorter-term play, and matchmaking under TVPlus (even though the article doesn't seem aware of the latter). I agree with what you're saying - that the TV difference isn't as big an issue as many people think it is (under the current system especially), but not the article author's assertion that it demonstrates that inducements are a decent balancing mechanic, as we have no inducementless data to compare it to... and the larger the gap the lower the underdog's win rate, so... balancing it ain't.

The differences in win rates were slightly (not tons, really) higher when BB2 was using TV matching, but that's hardly surprising since new system tries to balance out the TV differences with performance differences in the opposite direction.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

Dode74, I trust Jimmy Fantastic more than you... and if you sleep on it... you know the inducement problem yourself... And why is there the crazy rush to play many battles just after the reset. EVERYBODY knows about this... and you don't?

It's better to trust nobody's word on anything and investigate things using the data. Before the online BB community started using data (properly, or semi-properly) there were a whole lot of bits of "common wisdom" floating around which were eventually found to be false. Always take facts over folklore.

@voodoomike said in Mvp + rank information:

The board game wasn't created to be the competitive beast many people take it to be these days, it was meant to be fun and laughs to have with buddies.

Exactly voodoo... I feel that the game is a contradiciton in many ways... yes BB2 can become a competitive beast... but only with many changes... and why not develop it to be exactly that. Since many treat it that way... BB2 should have both, the possiblity to make leauges with the different rule sets (CRP and 2016) AND a special competitive mode with changes that endorse skill... It's not needed to change the game, just to make a ruleset with championships adjusted for the competitive ONLINE play. This way BB2 makes everybody happy! And the player base for the ONLINE game with increase.

As I already stated several times: does 1 extra reroll make up for 3-5 extra guys with block skill or migthy blows? The answer is obvious and can't be denied by ANY sane person! And I repeat, by ANY sane person!! That's why the cost of all or some inducements at least should be lowered...

It's a accepted fact among the "best" players in BB2... you get a huge advantage by facing teams with same TV or lower vs facing teams with alot higher TV in many matches increases the chances for draws and loss. It simply can't be denied now. Stop giving us shit. Or just resign your post and Cyanide ask Jimmy instead. He has more insight into this game than you. At least for the online play part.

It's a crazy rush each time the championship ladder gets resets, and there is a very good reason for this. Jimmy and the other "best" players knows this very well. Of course my theory is that if you play in the american prime time, thats about 0300-0800 at night/morning for me (EU +2 Paris, Oslo...), you gets a larger variation of skill level of the coaches, also increasing the chances to win regardless of TV difference. I don't have proofs for the last claim... but I still think its valid...

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

why not develop it to be exactly that

Because the stated design goal has always been a digital reproduction of the CRP board game. The success in achieving that goal is up for debate, ofc, but I doubt many would argue that it's not closer now than it was in 2009 or even 2015.

BB2 should have both, the possiblity to make leauges with the different rule sets (CRP and 2016) AND a special competitive mode with changes that endorse skill

I have absolutely no issue with that. I've regularly and often stated that options are a good thing and league commissioners should have the ability to chop and change them as they wish. This includes, but is not limited to: allowing and disallowing races, skills, inducements as desired; having multiple league structural options (and the ticket system is pretty flexible, although somewhat opaque) and progression options, including things like direct control of various matching criteria; and the ability for league commissioners to have full editorial control over teams (including direct edits down to player level to allow things like Chaos Cup mutations as prizes). But that would require a lot of time and investment from the developers and I really don't see it happening. We have far more options than we used to have, but nowhere near the scope and depth of them that I, and you it seems, would like to see.
That said, we have a resurrection mode. This is how tournaments in TT BB are run and would be analogous to your "competitive mode". It's a great mode for short-term competitions, and if there were a World Cup again I would recommend using it. For longer-term leagues and ladders, though, it's not great. Resurrection with progression and an equalised off-pitch attrition system would work pretty well.

As I already stated several times: does 1 extra reroll make up for 3-5 extra guys with block skill or migthy blows? The answer is obvious and can't be denied by ANY sane person! And I repeat, by ANY sane person!! That's why the cost of all or some inducements at least should be lowered...

Nobody has claimed that they would rather have a reroll over 5 of the best skills in the game. It's not always as simple an exchange as that, though. Of course I would choose to have the 5 top skills instead, but we don't choose our opponent's team composition or inducement choices.

Or just resign your post and Cyanide ask Jimmy instead. He has more insight into this game than you. At least for the online play part.

While I have no doubt of Jimmy's ability as a player, I don't think I would be impugning his abilities if I were to suggest that he has no idea how to gather, parse, disseminate and act on the data gathered and used to run a league, which is what my actual role is (if it turns out he does then I shall apologise, ofc!). Nor are any of the decisions made when running the league solely mine: the PC admin team is 7-strong with Netheos overseeing it, and all decisions are made among us rather than by any individual. You're just seeing me more because I'm the one responding to your regular and continual demands to change the game to have it the way you want it on this forum. Decisions on gameplay are made by Cyanide and Focus, not me or the admin team, and while we are all asked our opinions on certain matters we are far from the only ones being asked: there's also a large group of testers and other advisors I know they talk to. I suggest you are tilting at windmills here.

It's a crazy rush each time the championship ladder gets resets, and there is a very good reason for this. Jimmy and the other "best" players knows this very well.

Of course we know why. Even though the advantage given by larger TV is small, it's still an advantage, and competitive players will grab every advantage they can no matter how small. My point is that the advantage is not insurmountable at all.

I don't have proofs for the last claim... but I still think its valid...

And this is the issue with your thinking. Nobody is claiming it's not valid, but what you have is hypotheses which you claim to be correct without testing them. It's like claiming there's a alien base on the dark side of the moon: you could prove it's there by simply looking, but you won't and continue to act as if it is there.

last edited by dode74

Fair enough. You just confirmed, all by yourself, that inducements needs to be changed. Since having higher TV gives advantage.... changes to inducements must be done fast. Stop talking, work hard for changes now.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

I don't think I did confirm that they need to be changed. Nor am I someone who can change them.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

Fair enough. You just confirmed, all by yourself, that inducements needs to be changed. Since having higher TV gives advantage.... changes to inducements must be done fast. Stop talking, work hard for changes now.

If your assertion is that inducements should balance out the match then that's fine... but any attempt to re-price them would be total guesswork, and total guesswork is going to be a hard sell for anybody. Pushing for change when you don't know what change to make is unproductive... and outside of the full TVPlus system I don't know of any data supported method for altering the inducement system to actually create balanced matches.

There is also a large portion of the actively vocal userbase that opposes a shift away from unbalanced matches, which pretty dramatically increases how solid your alternatives need to be before they'll be even considered by random people much less the people who can make changes happen.

I give up for now, you guys are unbelievable...

Reset the clock!

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

Yes the rules should be changed to the BB2016... I heard something about "cards" than increase the random... those should be avoided... it's enough random as it is already

Here we go again, "let's implement the rule from the new edition I like, but omit the one I don't". As far I as can understand the book, usage of Cards is a mandatory part of league's games under new ruleset. I don't mind it to be optional for private leagues (but Cyanide may mind additional overhead of maintaining it as an optional feature), but that's not what you want, right?

last edited by Mori-Mori

@dode74 said in Mvp + rank information:

The benefit of having the higher TV team isn't as great as you might think.

I'm pretty sure these wins rates differences in the study you quote CAN be defined as "great":

-500 TV ~25% Win Rate
+500 TV ~64% Win Rate

Especially when considering at least some of the matches are under TV+ (so the coach down on TV may be a better one with a winning record).

The % of games WON in Season X CCL were this for Ogre and Undead (not ignoring draws like Mordrek):

Ogres 29%
Undead 50%

As you can see, its actually less great a difference than the plus or minus 500 TV difference swing.

Would you defend Ogres playing against Undead as being balanced? I doubt it. The fact that you seem to be playing down wider win % swings in the form of allowable TV differences seems a little odd...

Just for the record, if the BB2016 cards were introduced into CCL, I would stop playing in that league. There's way too much random volatility in the cards for my liking!

last edited by RunningDragon

@runningdragon said in Mvp + rank information:

I'm pretty sure these wins rates differences in the study you quote CAN be defined as "great":
-500 TV ~25% Win Rate
+500 TV ~64% Win Rate

It also acknowledges TV diff of 350-500 as "extreme" and notes only 10% of matches are happen with such differences. So even in extreme rare cases underdog still may win fairly often. For 90% of games, the diff in winrate is not that big at all.

last edited by Mori-Mori

If you try to ride two horses at the same time you most likely will develop a groin stretch... and maybe end up in chronical pains...

Blood bowl 2 tournaments...
"The game was never meant to be balanced or fair, but it's fun to try beat the odds!" VS
"Let's treat it as a serious competitive game!"

I have alot of experience from board games... and the people that play board games are divided in several "camps". The most competitive board gamers are a much smaller group than the "Happy go lucky, yeah lets go crazy!" group.

My guess is that the BB2 coaches are split into 4 groups...

Group 1: We want even more random and chaos events!
Group 2: Let's follow all the rules of the board game, the game is fun and chaotic and lets keep it that way!
Group 3: Some small adjustments should be done to balance the game abit, specially since it's a online game and the leauges here are different from the physical leauges
Group 4: The game could become a really nice game with several reductions in randomness! It's possible to balance the game alot.

Yep... I am in group 4.. Voodoo? group 3?

last edited by Hotdogchef

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

The most competitive board gamers are a much smaller group than the "Happy go lucky, yeah lets go crazy!" group.

So you actually understand this, yet you keep insisting on changing rules in major leagues to meet expectations of this minority? As already have been said multiple times, you would find much more support if you would try to create a separate community of those "competitive coaches" instead, and start to ask Cyanide for optional home rules you need to run it, and conduct your own "fair, skill-based" tournaments.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Well that's the interesting thing... Anybody that starts to reads the posts on this forum AND also want a less random game... they likely give up posting anything since Dode74 (the master blaster) and some others here just knocks them/us in the head with a mix of semi-truths and crap. I see no polls where Cyanide asks us what changes we want to adapt the leauges to the online enviroment.

Maybe group 3 and 4 is big enough... but we never know... since the voices are not heard or indirectly killed... like my voice...

Those that left the game (the online game) should also be heard. Did they belong in group 3 and 4 and left due to the lack interest to give them the choices they wanted.

I have no opinion overview... but I know from other games that people like to develop and customize their players. And not see their players killed at total random at any random point in a match. Just by removing deaths and treat deaths as injuries would make more people stay and play BB2. Trust my words.

You know what Jimmy says about Dode74? Personally I trust Jimmy 500% more than a guy that have very little clue, but pretends he does. The inducement discussion just proved my point. It rubbed it in, and sometimes the truth hurts.

last edited by Hotdogchef

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

I see no polls where Cyanide asks us what changes we want to adapt the leauges to the online enviroment.

But why do we need polls, you seem to be a pretty knowledgeable about the situation. Like, it was your words that such players are minority. Seems like you possess a lot of data unavailable to other crap-dealers here. Something more sounding than all those boring statistics charts @dode74 and others throw at us all the time, I guess.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

I have no opinion overview... but I know from other games that people like to develop and customize their players. And not see their players killed at total random at any random point in a match. Just by removing deaths and treat deaths as injuries would make more people stay and play BB2.

That's what Rez is for, so soon you'll get it too. Just create your own private league and develop them to your heart's content. Yet BB was designed to be a team management "simulator", and player's development is just a part of the whole game of team management. Players die and go, team lives, this is the core idea.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

You know what Jimmy says about Dode74? Personally I trust Jimmy 500% more than a guy that have very little clue, but pretends he does.

Personally I'm not very fond about a lot of people on those forums (me including), but that has to do nothing with objectiveness. @dode74 or @VoodooMike can back up their words regarding general situation with solid proofs at least, and JimmyFantastic just very good at playing BB. When it will come to getting advice on tactics, I'll surely listen to him.

last edited by Mori-Mori

I don't have data since there are no serious polls made for the players that play this game. The players that leave the game are not asked why they leave.

You can read? Yes? If not stop.

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

I don't have data since there are no serious polls made for the players that play this game.

Yet you claimed that "The most competitive board gamers are a much smaller group than the "Happy go lucky, yeah lets go crazy!" group." So you have data for this? Even if you have data that proves this, why do you need polls for BB specifically? Is it that much different from other board games?

@hotdogchef said in Mvp + rank information:

The players that leave the game are not asked why they leave.

Again, have you seen negative reviews at Steam? It's fairly obvious what people don't like about BB in general and BB2 specifically. But this hardly solid enough reason for changing core rules of the game, it will just make the other group of people angry, and there is no guarantee which group will be bigger. So we need to have some sort of reference point we could start moving from. And it's pretty reasonable to designate official ruleset by GW as such. This is what belongs to major leagues, and I as well stand for as much customizability as possible in private leagues. So, I repeat again, create community, devise your own rules, ask more from Cyanide as a group. This what has some chances to work (not high, imo)

The players will leave any game, you can't design a game which will be liked by everybody. This is actually the best way to do a s**ty game. The best approach would be to create a game with an emphasys on users-created content and mechanics, like Arma project does. But I doubt Cyanide will be able to deliver it, not for BB2, for sure.

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@runningdragon
What are the margins of error on those numbers? Because if you want to make inferences based on those data then you need to account for the uncertainty that the data is unrepresentative of the whole: randomness is a big factor, particularly, in BB.

That said, the statement I made was "not as great as you might thing", not "great". There are differences (especially when you consider concessions), but 65-35 or thereabouts (you do have to include draws - the game is balanced using them) is a lot lower than many people opine when they claim "no chance" and "utterly pointless".

@Hotdogchef
You forgot group 5, the group I am part of: give people all the tools they need to customise their leagues as they see fit, enabling those who prefer each of groups 1-4 to play the way they want to. I've said I'm all for options plenty of times. You, however, seem to insist on changing the core game to meet your requirements.

Not sure what you think the inducement discussion "proved". We know that inducements don't make the odds 50-50. You seem to be under the impression they should. They can, as Mike has shown, but it was a design intent of the board game that higher TV teams have an advantage.

@Hotdogchef Just for your information, inducements were designed to give the underdog an approx 33% chance of winning (assuming played sensibly yada yada yada). During the time the inducement rules were being tested (circa 2008/2009) it was suggested that inducements should aim to 50%, and this was shot down by Blood Bowl players across the world as it would make team building pointless.

@dode74 said in Mvp + rank information:

but it was a design intent of the board game that higher TV teams have an advantage.

Why run championships in an ONLINE environment without adjusting the inducements a little then?? The point of the inducements SHOULD be to give aprox 50-50 chance. Show that you actually have SOME knowledge about the game and adjust them. Or ask somebody that understand the game balance better... like Jimmy.

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Adjust them to what? I certainly have no issues with making each match 50-50, but you'd just be taking wild stabs in the dark.

A quick look at the win rates based on TV advantage for the same period of time pre-and-post implementation of TVPlus, since that's something we need to account for when assessing the power of inducements to balance matches. If we look at the win rates between -500 and +500 TV for these periods we see they change quite a bit under the different systems:

Here's what the win rates looked like under TV matching:

Win rates under TV matching

The win rates very tightly cling to the regression line, and we're looking at roughly 30% win rates at -500 TV.

The picture changes under TVPlus:

Win rates under TVPlus matching

Same amount of time, roughly the same number of games. This time we see the effect of TV difference significantly diminished both at the extreme ends of TV differences, and across the entire dataset. The ends show about a 40% win rate at -500 TV now... meaning the win rate differences across our spectrum go from 40% to 20% total.

The positive slope of both lines is related to using TV for inducement pools combined with the fact that inducements do not properly balance matches (per design, they say). If you calculated those pools using TVPlus rating instead you'd expect to see that line be roughly horizontal.

So, again... I do agree that under our current system the difference in win rates is not massive even at the extreme ends of the TV difference spectrum... but I don't agree with that one site's assessment that it's because inducements do a good job of balancing.. they don't. TVPlus matchmaking has decreased the effect of TV difference dramatically (halved it) but until inducements are no longer calculated on TV difference, that difference will always have a significant effect on the outcome of matches.

Start by reducing the price of the inducements by 25%, and then wait for the commuity feedback in 1-2 months time. Action not words now.

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

I'm not sure how I many ways I can tell you this: I have no control over that stuff. Nor am I going to support you in getting a ruleset tailored for you, but I will happily support you in getting options you can adjust so you can have the ruleset you want.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.