Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season

Well the post you replied to is gone, so if I am missing some context please correct me.

But the problem here is this is a league first, ending in a tournament. While rez works great for tournaments, its a terrible way to approach a league. Team progression becomes about raw number of games played, there is a lot less that goes into properly leveling a team.

NAF official tournaments are rez... but they also don't have progression, because that isn't the point of the tournaments. But the leagues they sponsor are not rez, It doesn't really make sense to be comparing leagues to tournaments, just because of the tournie at the end.

I'm also going to disagree with the basic premise of this discussion. I don't WANT all even matches. I want a variety. I want to sit down and play all variety of matches. I want some games where I massively outplay my opponent, and I even want to play against player I can never beat without luck. And I want even matches, Because the variety is what keeps it interesting. I learn tricks and strategy playing better players, ones I may never have thought of. I can test out things playing worse ones, without risk. when playing equal level, I get to work on small ways to make my current strategies better, to squeak a little more milage out of them.

On the other hand a competitive league requires the top players to be playing each other at least sometimes. Otherwise it is a contest of who can trounce the most weaker opponents.

And my last point- regarding inducements- they absolutely positively are NOT supposed to even out the game. I oppose the hell out of any system that tries to make them do that. The intent is not to raise the game to equal levels, but to give the underdog a chance... not a 50/50, but at least a 30/70 or so. Tv++ is aflat out absed on a wrong assumption of the point of the inducement system.

If you want evidence that the inducements are NOT meant to even out a game, just look at the cost of journeymen. Not counting the free linemen for being short players, journeymen cost MORE than the associated players... and they come with a drawback (loner). How can anyone look at this and think inducements are meant to create a 50/50 matchup?

last edited by Gatorlover

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

But the problem here is this is a league first, ending in a tournament. While rez works great for tournaments, its a terrible way to approach a league. Team progression becomes about raw number of games played, there is a lot less that goes into properly leveling a team.

That's predicated on the idea that that only way to handle attrition is by extending on-pitch attrition to the larger meta-game, and that's simply not true. We know from the numbers that differential rates of attrition lead us to highly skewed demographics in open play.. there are other ways to apply long-term attrition other than linking it to on-pitch injury, such as ageing or BB2016's seasons... or any number of other methods any of us can think up that apply equally to all rosters.... assuming long-term attrition does prove necessary.

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

NAF official tournaments are rez... but they also don't have progression, because that isn't the point of the tournaments. But the leagues they sponsor are not rez, It doesn't really make sense to be comparing leagues to tournaments, just because of the tournie at the end.

Actually, the reason for excluding death and injury as well as progression via SPP in NAF tournaments is to reduce the effects of randomness on each individual's experience during the limited tournament. They typically do include progression, but it is equal progression based on the number of rounds or days.

It make sense to compare leagues and tournaments to point out that they are the same damned game and that the claim that its not the same game without death and injury is demonstrably false. Declaring that they can't be compared because they're not identical is extending the comparison too far in an attempt to dodge the point.

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

And my last point- regarding inducements- they absolutely positively are NOT supposed to even out the game. I oppose the hell out of any system that tries to make them do that. The intent is not to raise the game to equal levels, but to give the underdog a chance... not a 50/50, but at least a 30/70 or so. Tv++ is aflat out absed on a wrong assumption of the point of the inducement system.

We know what the BBRC intended, but its a philosophy that doesn't work well with large scale play between strangers. A handicapping system that deliberately fails to balance matches is... stupid... even if it was intended as such. Given the low population pool we either need to have everyone learn to love bad matches (which no matchmaking system can do anything about with low pool sizes) or we need to have a handicapping system that better balances the matches that we can make. TVPlus does the latter.

People don't mind imbalance so long as it is skewed in their favour... they'll claim they don't mind being crapped on, but all evidence on all games is that they mind it a lot - that's why all serious competitive games try to create balance within their matchmaking. With BB2's long match lengths and low population, any hope of improving balance comes from improving the balancing system. With TVPlus that can be done using the mechanisms already in place in the game while still allowing us to accurately determine who the best teams/coaches are.

Honestly, your post and all other posts on the topic can be summarized as "I disagree with fair matches". Everything else you add to that point is just noise.

For me the most interesting thing in BB is not "chess with dice" but the team management and role playing aspects.
Even for more experienced coaches who learned to deal with bad luck and dying players this does not go away completely.

If I roll a double6 and my player gets strength I want to think "Yay, I love this guy!" and not just "Ok, interesting... but my next opponent will get a fair inducement - so this player won't increase my chance of winning." If my St+ player dies I want to think "Oh no, such a tragic - Nuffle hates me" and not "who cares - TV++ balances every match perfectly, so my next match will be exactly as difficult. No matter if that guy lives or dies."

When I started with tabletop there where no journeymen. After a match where your elves got completely destroyed by a bashing team, all your next game was about, was surviving, waiting for your players to recover and earning some money - and most of these matches were an extremely thrilling experience.
(some were frustrating as hell, so maybe it was a good thing to include journeymen)

That's what BB is about for me. Like in real sports you have to deal with whatever you face. Legends are born when underdogs win - so you need underdog situations. Players get famous because they are outstanding, so you need some random elements for their evolution. And every good story has a beginning, a climax and an END - so players need to get be able to get worse and/or die, to end their story.

100% balancing, no permanent injuries and non-random evolution would destroy all those aspects. Yes, it woul be a fairer competition - but before reducing CCL to a "chess with dice" tournament, please start another competition for those of us who actually enjoy blood bowl for what makes it special: It creates legendary stories.

May your St5 wardancers die on a gfi in turn 16 - and never come back...!
(...as long as you don't face Undead)

last edited by Ioelet

@VoodooMike

So your basic argument is you want bloodbowl to not be bloodbowl, but some other carebear game where everyone gets to be fair, and everyone is equal?

We know what the BBRC intended, but its a philosophy that doesn't work well with large scale play between strangers. A handicapping system that deliberately fails to balance matches is... stupid... even if it was intended as such.

See your problem is you think this is all fact, when it is actually just your opinion. this seems to be a theme with this entire thread.

People don't mind imbalance so long as it is skewed in their favour... they'll claim they don't mind being crapped on, but all evidence on all games is that they mind it a lot -

Those people keep coming back to play those games though, so clearly they don't mind so much as they love to complain.

And to be clear, I do disagree with your version of fair matches. Fairness comes from being equally skilled, not from trying to adjust the game so poor players and good players are evenly matched.

It defeats any point of a tournament to see who is best when the game is literally adjusted to make equal result.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Why even bother leveling a team if i know the system will do all the work to make me competetive with zero effort?

last edited by Gatorlover

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

And to be clear, I do disagree with your version of fair matches. Fairness comes from being equally skilled, not from trying to adjust the game so poor players and good players are evenly matched.

I think the best way of balancing BB without taking the fun out of it is by telling the coaches who ask for more balancing:
"Chose whatever team you want, play it the way you want and skill it the way you want - if you think there is any strategy that is overpowerd, use that strategy and try to become a champion by exploiting it. You won't - so shut up about balancing problems. This game is equally unfair to all of us."

If you managed to level your team up to TV 2000 your team is better than a new team at TV 1000. So what? Bayern Munich is better than 1860 Munich. The New England Patriots are better than the Cleveland Browns.
If you play World of Warcraft your Level-1-character is worse than a Level-50-character. If you don't like that - level up.

Optimizing matchmaking an/or making 100% "fair" inducements means that you won't have the "Bayern", "1860", "Patriots" and "Browns" of BloodBowl anymore, no more Ag5 High Elf Thrower "Tom Brady" - just a bunch of miniatures ready for balanced matches.

I love to see my flings lose most of there matches, but once in a while defeating the "Patriots". I enjoy imbalancing especially against my team. If love good underdog stories. And if someone doesn't like that he's free to play any other race and strategy he thinks is positively imbalanced.

last edited by Ioelet

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

Why even bother leveling a team if i know the system will do all the work to make me competetive with zero effort?

Here I have to defend TV+:
That's not exactly the outcome of creating balanced matches. Yes, TV+ tries to match you against equally well performing teams - but it's your duty to prove that it's wrong. As long as you win, you go up in rank. After a few wins you will compete against the best coaches of BB. If you defeat them, you go up in rank and go on against the best. If you lose you lose your rank and your next opponents will be easier to defeat. So on the long term your team will end up between top coaches and average coaches.

If you lose some matches against average teams/coaches, you will be matched against bad coaches. If you play well enogh to defeat bad coaches/teams but lose against average coaches/teams, your team will end ranked between those two groups.

So:
No, it's not just "50-50" every match, flip a coin ten times and look on which rank you will end the season.
If one match really was 50-50, and you think you lost because of bad luck, your next match will be against an easier opponent - so you get a chance to prove that against those opponents you actually have a more than 50% winning chance. MM says "you look like an average coach - I will match you with one". Now it's your turn to prove MM wrong and defeat every opponent until MM says "ok, you're one of the best coaches".

tl;dr:
The ranking mechanic trys to create 50-50 matches. Your skill determines on which rank and against which opponents you really have 50-50 chance. If it's against the best coaches of BB, than you will be ranked as one of these coaches.
Play against those guys with "30-10-2" winning distribution and you will realize, that they did not get these results out of luck.

last edited by Ioelet

@Ioelet

Oh, I have no problem with the current system, where it attempts to match up evenly skilled opponents when possible, using TV's and wins to try. Because its not always possible, you still get other games too sometimes.

What I am opposing is the proposed "full tv+" or "tv++", where inducements are tweaked based on this win % and not just actual TV's in order to make everything a coin flip.

I really like the way right now it balances things, I just don't want a league system wheer players are punished for winning by giving opponents extra inducements. When winning just means more skilled opponents, bring it on. When it means in game advantages for opponents, not increased skill, than screw that.

Honestly, a lot of the complaints I am seeing from the OP and from Mr BBOracle here boil down to they don't like randomness. But a game that boils down to a risk management game needs that randomness to have any meaning...

Honestly, I think you and I are saying the same thing mostly.

last edited by Gatorlover

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

Well the post you replied to is gone, so if I am missing some context please correct me.

How ironic that you complain that you didn't get to read your own post from the last account that got banned when starting up with your new line of complaints.

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

Honestly, a lot of the complaints I am seeing from the OP and from Mr BBOracle here...

...and that's where you give yourself away again, @crazyguy_co. You're the only person in ages who has obsessed about BBOracle... plus you signed up right after your last account got banned, and have only posted in the same thread you were last banned from.

Try to mix it up a bit if you're trying to lay low...

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

Honestly, I think you and I are saying the same thing mostly.

Since I'm not a native English speaker, sometimes I miss some more subtle content. But after the explanation (thank you for that) - yes, I think we say mostly the same.

last edited by Ioelet

@VoodooMike

I'm honestly at this point flat out confused.

Because I recognize your name, I must be someone else?

More importantly, what does any of that have to do with

I only pointed out your former hack because it goes right in line with my theory about hating randomness... I didn't mean it as anything but proof of my assumption, and I'm sorry if it is a sore spot.

last edited by Gatorlover

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

I'm honestly at this point flat out confused.

You're only confused about what gave you away.

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

Because I recognize your name, I must be someone else?

No, you're the same guy because you're the same guy. As I pointed out:

  1. The BBOracle obsession is what made me bother to look - only you have obsessed about that in years.
  2. Your account was created on the same day your LAST account got banned, and immediately picked up the same conversation where your last post was deleted by the mods.
  3. Your posting characteristics are the same. In terms of punctuation, you use ellipses (...) frequently, and you routinely use a dash instead of a colon (eg, "and my last point- stuff"). Conversationally, you favour certain phrases like "be clear" (eg lets be clear, or to be clear) as well.

Everybody has patterns and yours are more obvious than you believe. Now I get to laugh at you for being too much of a coward to admit to being you 😉

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

More importantly, what does any of that have to do with

There's no point in having discussions with someone who is on their third account this week, especially when they followed me to this thread to continue a bitch-fight from the first thread they got banned on, and when their second banned account's posts got deleted.

So because you have no response, you'd rather go into some weird tangent.

Sorry, guess I'll have to assume I was right, that you see "random" as unfair, and want skill to be negated by "balancing"

last edited by Gatorlover

@crazyguy_co said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

So because you have no response, you'd rather go into some weird tangent.

I'm just not going to waste any effort writing serious responses to an account that is just as likely to be banned in a day or two as not. Get @netheos to declare that you get to keep this latest account and I'll happily get back to the topic.

I'll admit, though... listening to you advocate BB's unfairness after whinging that you think you should be allowed to concede any time you face a bash team in CCL is rough tack. Especially since you whinged so hard and with so much randomly distributed hate that you managed to get banned for it.

Conceding was the poison of BB1 that made FoL neccesary to begin with, I literally do not know how a player saying "I like being outclassed sometimes" is actually advocating concessions.

Show me on the doll where this bad poster touched you, then come back to the big boy conversation, whenever you are ready.

There is those ellipses again in your post btw. I really am concerned that the other poster was a literal strawman now.

last edited by Gatorlover

One way that i would find interesting for the play-offs (or only the final ?) would be best of 3,

-one game at 1000TV
-one game at 1150TV naf Styled (with improvment tiered based for the weakest teams)
-last game (if needed) withe qualified team.

Or why not all the playoffs in Naf styled format ?

About TV++ propositions, i would like to know if their advocates have been trying it for real somewhere ?

@Gatorlover said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

There is those ellipses again in your post btw. I really am concerned that the other poster was a literal strawman now.

Oh I absolutely use ellipses... often - more often than you. It's part of my own typing pattern, along with using two spaces after periods. Most people don't use them often at all which is why it's part of your typing pattern. Take a look (the ellipses here are simply to demonstrate that it continues on).

heavy use of "clearly" and "clear"

@crazyguy_co:
"And lets be clear, buy advertising exactly how..."
"And lets be absolutely clear- Nearly half of the..."
"...when it is clearly flawed as a measurement.."

@Gatorlover:
"...so clearly they don't mind so much..."
"...And to be clear, I do disagree...."

heavy use of all-cap words

@crazyguy_co:
"Because 10% would be LESS than expected..."
"...since its SELF SELECTING and the ..."
"...about them, you ARE not just allowing..."
"GREAT moderation we got here."

@Gatorlover:
"I don't WANT all even matches."
"...the inducements are NOT meant to even out a game..."
"...journeymen cost MORE than the associated players..."

Referring to things as "carebear" play

@LazyFocus:
"Maybe in your carebear leagues they are..."

@Gatorlover:
"...but some other carebear game..."

Using a dash in place of a colon

@crazyguy_co:
"And lets be absolutely clear- Nearly half of..."
"Dode- Not the version of it Voodoo is pushing..."

@Gatorlover:
"And my last point- regarding inducements- they absolutely positively..."

And all of this is in addition to the fact that each of your accounts was created right after your previous account was banned (@LazyFocus was made right after @crazyguy_co was banned, and @Gatorlover was created right after @LazyFocus was banned) and each one just magically decided to launch into some argument with me as their first post.

Like I said... get @Netheos to say you're not going to be banned again and I'll indulge your disingenuous stalking, but given that your last account's posts were deleted as you were banned, and because you're voicing, under this persona, views that conflict with your old one, I don't trust that you're not just arguing for the sake of being contrary. That's a waste of my time.

So go ahead and keep waffling and dancing, trying to distance yourself from... well... yourself. Until I hear official word, all I'm going to do is make fun of you for lacking the courage to be who you really are.

@ungern said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

One way that i would find interesting for the play-offs (or only the final ?) would be best of 3,

-one game at 1000TV
-one game at 1150TV naf Styled (with improvment tiered based for the weakest teams)
-last game (if needed) withe qualified team.

Or why not all the playoffs in Naf styled format ?

About TV++ propositions, i would like to know if their advocates have been trying it for real somewhere ?

Timing is the issue for such formats. 6 weeks is the limit otherwise we end up having to admin multiple overlapping competitions. And we're using teams from CCL itself: it's a team competition, not a coach competition.

@VoodooMike

You are trying hard enough that I'm now convinced that you created your own troll, and what, one of the mods is on to you so your desperate to misdirect?

@ungern said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

About TV++ propositions, i would like to know if their advocates have been trying it for real somewhere ?

Nope. Small scale testing wouldn't tell us anything that straight logic doesn't already tell us... hell, large-scale testing is unlikely to either, but I never discount the possibility of unexpected interaction. I've run it through large-scale sims in the past and it works out as expected in each (thus far... I'm always building more complex sims).

Because full TVPlus does not rely on guesswork or intuition but rather straight math, we don't actually need to test it to know it works... the thing we don't know is what the experience will be like for the end-user beyond applying what we know of human psychology. People's long-term experience can only be guessed at beyond that.

@VoodooMike said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

I've run it through large-scale sims in the past and it works out as expected in each (thus far... I'm always building more complex sims).

Have you published those sims yet? If so: where can I find them? If not: Could you provide them in some way?

I would be interested to see what you did. I did some simple simulations too and went on with doing preparations/concepts for more complex ones, but I stopped at one point due to the lack of time