Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@voodoomike said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

@stringer-bell said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

Well the overall cap I'm suggesting is very much secondary, and less important, than the main idea of capping games per week for a specific team.

Caps are caps - they're limitations on how much someone can play something, and they're the opposite of promoting people to play more games. Capping a team on games played per week is essentially hobbling those who DO have more time and motivation to play in order to make them only run at the speed of people who have less time and motivation. That's bad business.

But again, you'd still be able to play as many games as you play now, and even with any specific team, youd be able to play as many games as you play now. Its not actually limiting how much anyone can play. Its spread out a bit, but you can still pump out 50 or 60 or wahtever number of games you want with that one team, just not all in the first week, which discourages other less hardcore players from competing. The only hobbling it does is eliminates an advantage from basically the top 1% of super hardcore grinders, and Im arguing that such a small impediment to such a small fraction of the player base is warranted if it makes the game better for everyone else.

I think you're wrong about impediment here. For those who want to qualify for the cup (and really, that's what we're talking about here) there's a pretty big incentive to focus on one time rather than spread your games among multiple teams - the ranking system incentivizes playing more games, so playing more games with the team you're trying to qualify with makes good sense, assuming you're a great coach.

see above

Likewise, weekly caps don't help latecomers much since they'll always be <x> weeks behind the early starters, in an environment that gives bonus ranking to higher games played. It would mean there's no point at all in trying to qualify for the cup after a certain number of weeks since your team will be unable to play the number of games needed to rank seriously.

Thats not true at all. You may have missed this, but Im not suggesting a flat cap per week. Im suggesting a cap that would apply for maybe the first 2-3 weeks and then be removed or at least loosened up significantly. That way you diminish the early grinder advantage, but late in the season you can still play as many games as you want, so you could still grind out 40 games in the final week and qualify like anyone else.

Also I should clarify that the main idea here isnt necessarily to help people who start late. That's good too I suppose, but the more important issue that affects more people isnt starting late, but simply not having the ability to keep up with the grind. Even if I start the champ ladder on day one, I, and most players, are only able to play a couple games a day at most. Some people literally grind out their 40 games in the first week, against week opposition, and that is the unfair advantage Im trying to address here. So its not so much about starting late as it is about the impossibility of keeping pace with the early grinders regardless of when you start.

@stringer-bell said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

And in terms of your comment about fairness, yeah I agree youre never gonna make it perfectly fair for everyone regardless of commitment level, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to even things out where you can do so without harming the game.

I don't disagree about balance and fairness... I just don't agree, in games or in life, with the idea of holding back the strongest so the weakest can keep up. If some loon wants to put 12 hours a day into playing in CCL then power to them... maybe they deserve the spot in the cup just on merit of being so dedicated. I don't think favouring that sort of dedication over, say, the working guy who only plays 3x a week, at least in terms of competitive league outcomes, is a bad idea.

I'm basically with you on this sentiment. But the thing is, even with a cap, the grinders and hardcore players will still have an advantage. They always will, and im not trying to eliminate that. Its still an advantage to max out 3 or 4 different teams in week one, while the casual player can only get a handful of games in. But at least its a much more level playing field and gives your average player a lot more hope for longer into the season than they have now, when theres a 45-8-4 chaos dwarf team on like day 4 of the ladder.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@dode74 said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

Oh, and the reason I didn't explain Elo in detail is I figured you had access to Google. It's actually surprisingly accurate when the appropriate factors are considered. Straight elo isn't very good, but Elo factoring in the better predictive methods of assessment of a match (TV, zSum) is proving pretty good so far (82% correct prediction of matches in the dataset used so far - further testing to come). If it maintains that sort of level intend to see how it works out when the TrueSkill system is applied next.

Honestly man, I mostly try and stick up for you and the admins when people complain about you guys, but you really are quite a douche. Yes I have access to google, very clever of you. Im asking you, the community representative/admin for this game, to directly explain this idea that you mention, and that's your response? Really helpful. Especially when even you yourself now go on to say that it isnt "straight" ELO, so googling ELO wouldnt have even answered the question.

I see this kind of response from you time and time again. I realize some people troll you, but maybe if your skin is so thin that you now feel the need to react like this when someone is simply trying to suggest something in a constructive way that you disagree with, you should not be in this role. You are not a good liason for this community. Even leaving aside the massive screw up at the start of this season, you are just stubborn and difficult to communicate with. Good luck growing the game if this is your attitude towards people who are actually trying to help you

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@dode74 said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

People want to play the teams they want to play. Prevent them doing so and some (not all) won't play at all.

Elo is an example of a ranking system which rewards people less for playing worse opponents or more for playing better ones. I'm working on an Elo-based system (not specifically Elo, but with similarities) which would enable that.

But people would still be allowed to play any team they want to play, and putting the total games cap idea aside, they can play as many games with any team as they want (and even with the total games cap, if you set it to say 55 games, how many people would that actually affect in a given season? you have the numbers on this im sure, but Id be shocked if more than a handful of teams get over 55 games in a given ladder season)

But focusing on the weekly cap, all it would do is slow people down from grinding out 40 games in the first 10 days with a single team, and I would argue that the competitive disadvantage that the early grind creates probably costs more games from the total # of games being played in the ladder (out of frustration, etc) than the restriction would cost (which theoretically would be zero since you can still play all the games you want, with any race you want.)

Think of how it works now. The people who grind a ton of games with one team until its more or less maxed out for champ ladder purposes have two choices. Either A) go on to play as another team or 😎 just sit and wait till the end of the season.

Under my idea, both of these things are still possible, except they get spread out more over the course of the season, which is a desirable outcome for everyone. If you want to get multiple teams going, you do that here too, except you will be starting your other teams earlier. There would be more teams at a more equal level of TV all the way through the season. And if all you wanna do is grind out your 40 games (or as many as you want) with one team, you can still do that, but you just do it over the course of the season instead of in the first few days, which Im sure we all agree is better for the fairness of the competition.

Speaking of fairness, you dont seem to be considering how that, and the overall quality of the ladder, factors into the amount of games played. You seem to be analyzing this as "hmm, this could potentially keep a couple people from playing a couple extra games per week if all they wanna do is grind with a single team, and they only want to do it in the first week and would refuse to play if they had to do it throughout the season." Even if that is true of a significant number of people (which I highly doubt, and there is no evidence or way to really prove that), it still leaves out the fact that there could be people who currently dont play, or play less than they would, because they are frustrated with the current system, or they see someone bang out a quick 40 games with their favourite race and now see no point in trying to compete.

As for the ELO thing, you didnt really answer or explain anything at all... just repeated what you said before. Im asking how it would actually work in practice.

edit: @VoodooMike explained ELO, and it works pretty much as I suspected. And I agree with him, sounds great in theory but I dont this would work very accurately at all in this game, for the same reasons he stated.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@voodoomike said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

@stringer-bell said in Floating some ideas for champ ladder improvement:

why would it limit the total number of games. You can still play unlimited games, you just have to start a new team.

Not everyone gets off on that sort of serial monogamy - quite a few people enjoy playing the same team for an entire season... in fact, there have been plenty of people who tried to push to allow teams to span multiple seasons in CCL (to no avail, of course). There's already a 6-week lifespan on teams... an <x> game lifespan would discourage those folks from continued play in CCL after they'd hit the arbitrary cap.

One of the main goals of CCL development has always been "get people to play more matches!". This sort of idea involves trampling that in favour of "make things more fair for latecomers!". Ultimately I think we'd all like to see both being seen to, but not the latter at the expense of the former. Also, I'm not sure its in the game's best interest to potentially limit people who play more often for the benefit of people who play less often.

Well the overall cap I'm suggesting is very much secondary, and less important, than the main idea of capping games per week for a specific team. If they did put in an overall cap, I'd assume it would be quite high - like over 50 games. Very few teams actually reach that point each season anyway so it would only be limiting to a handful of people, and it would promote a more equal competition across the board, which seems a fair tradeoff to me. And if you do just want to play one team and develop it endlessly, thats what open ladder is for.

But in terms of the games per week idea, people could still play the same team for the entire season, and theoretically play an unlimited amount of games with any specific team too (if the total cap wasn't implemented) because the per week cap would be lifted toward the end of the season, since its no longer needed to reduce the early grinder advantage at that point.

I totally agree with you that developing teams is the major draw with this game, so any idea to make the ladder more fair cant impede that too much. I dont really think either of these ideas do that to any significant extent.

And in terms of your comment about fairness, yeah I agree youre never gonna make it perfectly fair for everyone regardless of commitment level, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to even things out where you can do so without harming the game.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

why would it limit the total number of games. You can still play unlimited games, you just have to start a new team. Could even start a new team of the same race. All it limits is the amount of games you play with one specific team in a specific time span.

Curious how you would reward people more or less for playing specific opponents... but im highly skeptical on the face of it. Interested to hear more though

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

Deal with the problem of the early grinder advantage in champ ladder. That is what you said you're talking about here - people who join CCL late are at a disadvantage. I agree with that, but I think giving them some kind of artificial boost for some arbitrary number of games is a bad way to deal with it.

I did actually just start another thread about this exact issue though. You should pop in and discuss it there because we both agree there is a problem that should be addressed (but its not the topic of this thread).

As for the PO thing, yes we do seem to be talking about different things. And I have seen some of the @Hotdogchef saga play out already. My point is simply that, even though the semantic reasoning for changing the PO rules is different than just "reduce randomness", the randomness of PO and armour rolls in general really is a frustrating thing in the game at times, and so Im basically saying that finding a way to nerf the whole killstack thing a bit would go a long way to improving the game overall and probably making the hotdogchefs of the world like it more, since randomly getting pitch-cleared can happen whether you are playing well or not, and whether your opponent is playing well or not.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

Just wondering what people would think about placing certain restrictions on the number of games you can play with a particular team for certain periods of time in the champ ladder, in order to try and even the playing field a bit overall, and more specifically, to address the early grinder advantage.

I thought a couple of things that might be interesting are:

1) A cap on the number of games per X period of time with any specific team.

This could work a couple of ways. I imagine there are restrictions imposed by the flexibility, or lack thereof, of the administrative tools in the game, and the time the admins have available to devote to the ladder, but I think an ideal situation would be something where you have a progressive cap system that allows for a few more games each week of the season.

So it would start out like: 7 games allowed per team in week 1. Then 10 games week 2. 15 week 3. And so on.

This way you can still start a team later in the season and have a chance to grind your way into the playoffs, but it also removes the advantage for people who are able to somehow pump out like 40 games in the first week (sounds like an exaggeration, but Ive noticed one or two coaches in particular are actually doing this over the past few seasons, with kill teams, which definitely puts them at an advantage).

You would still be able to play as many games as you want as a coach. You'd just have to start a new team after hitting your cap for that week if you want to keep playing. This would also encourage a diversity of races in the game, since the heavy players would have more teams going and are more likely to spread it around a bit in terms of race, instead of just trying to grind out their 40 games with their favourite race before they move on to something else.

A more simple way to do it would just be to cap it for the first half of the season. Say 10 games per week for the first 2-3 weeks, then remove the cap. Still basically accomplishes the same goal, and might be a little easier to manage.

Obviously all these numbers are just random numbers Im throwing out there and could be tweaked as appropriate, but just wondering what admins and players think of this?

2) This idea is much more simple - maybe cap the total number of games a team is allowed to play in champ. This is much less of a problem than the first issue, but still, its a little disheartening to look at the ladder and see the top chaos team with about 70 games played and a team full of clawpombers. I know the current points system sort of includes diminishing returns past game 42 or so, which naturally curbs players away from doing this. But if you have a good enough record going, or no challengers near to your record, you can really just rack up the development whereas the other team are going to dis-incentivized from doing the same if they are in competitive races and dont want to risk losing their spot.

Its a problem in the sense of giving that team an advantage for playoffs, and also just making it very difficult for people who cant grind out that many games to match them. Even with the diminishing points system, you are still getting positive points for wins, and the team is so developed at that point that you're gonna rack up a ton of concedes and easy wins, making it very difficult for someone to make a late run and catch you when they can only afford to play ~30 games or so.

I feel like a cap of 50 games or so would be easy enough to implement and would prevent the uber teams from popping up. What does everyone think?

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@mori-mori said in Luck vs Skill:

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

Pile On is absolutely a very luck-centric ability. The 'skill' involved is limited to a usually fairly simple calculation of risk (how much do you lose by putting your guy prone in this scenario) vs reward (how likely you are to remove the opponent and how important it would be to remove him). Sometimes that calculation is a little more nuanced and complex than others, but overall there really isnt a lot of skill involved.

You either have very strange idea of what luck is, or missed the whole context of all the ongoing debates with @Hotdogchef (which goes far beyond this one topic). His problem is that he refuses to accept the fact there are too much randomness in BB, i.e. events which are not affected by skill at all, or affected very little by it. Of course PO has some dice rolling part to it, so it's affected by luck to a certain extent. But it's clearly not some totally random element which result is independent of your decisions. By spamming it all over your players and using it on regular basis each turn, you significantly increase chances of removing defending player during your block. It's a decision-based skill which guarantees you certain outcome (greater chance of maiming opponent's players), not something that just happens no matter you do.

If you cant see the luck aspect of what you yourself just said, I dont know what to tell you. It comes down to chance, even by your own admission. Everything in BB basically is about increasing your chances of certain outcomes. Of course skill puts you in the best position with the best odds, but it always comes down to chance and the point I am making is that PO is more about chance and less about skill than most other strategies of play, like good ball control, screening, using guard effectively, etc.

And I agree that the main problem with the killstack thing is that its too powerful, not simply that its too random. That doesnt mean that it isnt basically a strategy of play that comes down to very little skill, and mostly just luck, in terms of who wins. See my example in the previous post to explain that.

As for your second point about the 5-7 games, its still misguided for the same reasons I posted before. I agree that early starters for champ ladder get an advantage, and Dode seems to agree as well. But I just dont think some artificial boost to late starters for their first 5-7 games, or whatever arbitrary number you want to pick, is a smart way to deal with it.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

Although I generally agree that theres no point in complaining about the luck aspect of the game because that basically is what the game is based around, there is a lot in @Mori-Mori 's post that is just wrong.

Pile On is absolutely a very luck-centric ability. The 'skill' involved is limited to a usually fairly simple calculation of risk (how much do you lose by putting your guy prone in this scenario) vs reward (how likely you are to remove the opponent and how important it would be to remove him). Sometimes that calculation is a little more nuanced and complex than others, but overall there really isnt a lot of skill involved.

On the other hand, the luck aspect of it is basically just how well your armour roll turns out, and armour rolls are probably one of the most frustrating areas of the game in terms of getting screwed by luck. I say this as someone who loves BB in all its frustration and randomness, but seriously, if someone is just getting lucky with their armour rolls, and even their blocking dice rolls that allow them to get to the armour roll stage, that is probably the most common thing that leads to those hopeless "nothing you can do about it" kind of games. So just spamming PO and hoping you roll good with armour involves a pretty simple skill calculation and then its just all luck in terms of how well it works out for you.

Think about a game where each team has one clawpomb killer, and they are both playing smart and keeping their killer safe where possible, but eventaully one of them is left open, and the other killer hits him, and gets the pow and piles on, and fails to break armour. Now on the next turn, that opponent gets up and clawpombs some other important piece and injures him, and then fouls and injures the other killer piece too. This kind of scenario is all too common, and more often than not, the game is basically decided right then and there in the span of those two turns. Both coaches played it right, and one just got lucky in the right moment.

Its also totally incorrect to state that the TV mismatches on champ ladder only matter for the first 5-7 matches. Actually in my experience they get worse when my team gets to mid-TV level, because at low TV, theres a lot of other low TV teams to get matched against. There are fewer teams as you get to mid and high TV, so more likely you end up with a TV mismatch. Also, depending on the race your playing, it can often be much worse to be playing as a 1250 TV vs 1600, rather than a 1000 TV playing a 1350. If it was chaos vs chaos for example (and lets be honest, it often is in champ ladder), the first example probably means you have a few guys with block, and are facing clawmb and maybe even clawpomb. The second example means you are a fresh team facing a few block, maybe a MB or two. Much better off in that scenario IMO.

Im not in favour of trying to remove all luck from BB (which wouldnt even be BB anymore, and im not sure if thats what @Hotdogchef is advocating for or not), but I also think its dumb to just ignore the very real problems that this game has, because if its gonna grow in popularity, or even sustain the popularity it has now, some of those problems can and should be addressed.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

lol thanks, helpful reply.


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