Posts made by Stringer Bell
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.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

Alright Ive been tuned, and its been over a month. Cant we get an early christmas present or something?

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

@marni said in I honestly hate this game [Mostly rant/complaint]:

Is this the whinge thread?

I would like to say that I love Blood Bowl.
I have played hundreds of online games, and still havent used all the teams, so will be playing hundreds more.

I think Blood Bowl 2 was poorly executed.
-I dont like the entire user interface at all
-league management lacks a laundry list of features.
-The models still can’t be customised enough, even the paint schemes don’t have enough choices.

The random nature of the game is the only thing that keeps me playing.

Now this is the whinging I can get behind.

I really don't get the whole "too much random" in BB because... what are you suggesting exactly? Its one thing when people say Blitz! should be gotten rid of, or throw rock, etc. But when youre literally just complaining about "too much dice" in a dice-based game, well then I dont get it . As OP said, maybe its just not for him. But this @Hotdogchef fella... what are your suggestions for fixing it exactly? How would you create the game of BB in a suitably non-random fashion? Genuinely curious.

But I completely agree with @Marni - Much to be improved about the UI, and the same goes for the league management. But to me, the biggest head-scratcher of them all is the lack of customization.

I say this because I can see huge benefit on both the player and developer sides here. If there's one thing that makes the BB fanbase unique, it is the tabletop roots that so many have. And even those who dont play TT, like myself, probably are drawn towards it somewhat for the customization/team building aspects. We love customization. The TT people love to paint shit. And developers love to sell stupid little cosmetic upgrades in video games these days. You can see where Im going with this...

I know there are a few (mostly crap) uniforms on sale in the shop. But honestly, there should be huuuge customization options in the game. I dont think all (or even most) should be charged for, mind you. Cant alienate the players too much. But don't you think that making an alternate model of a beastman or a troll or whatever, for however much man hours that costs on the development end, could be recouped by selling access to them in the shop for a couple bucks a pop? or as DLC or whatever? Or even just alternate armour sets for guys, or accessories etc etc etc.

/hijacking of thread

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

If you want to keep the diversity aspect in the ladder (which I agree is at least somewhat important to the game), then the only real answer I see is to properly incentivize the playing of weaker races in a way that is proportional to the incentive you have to play the stronger races.

As Seanny as pointed out, it is bad logic to assume that a better chance at a playoff spot is a relevant incentive. Im sure some of us take some pride simply in qualifying too, but obviously the biggest incentive that exists in this entire format is the chance to win $500. Not life changing money obviously, but a heck of a lot more than most of us are ever going to make playing any other video game. So ultimately, the objective for most people who care about making the playoffs isnt just to make the playoffs. The objective is to actually win something once they are in the playoffs. Adding additional wildcard spots for crappy teams doesnt significantly improve those crappy teams' likelihood of winning the big prizes.

A few possible solutions have already been mentioned in this thread. Giving out some nominal money or other prize for the top finisher of each race would probably help, but to actually make a big shift toward parity, there's gotta be some kind of chance for the stunty teams to win a big prize, closer to the level of what all the tier 1 races are competing for.

You could run a separate stunty cup along side the regular playoffs, and give out wildcards etc to fill out the regular field of 20 teams or whatever it is that are considered non-stunty, and then taking X number of stunty teams + stunty wildcards for a 8 or 16 man stunty cup.

Or you keep things as they are now, with 32 teams of all races represented in the regular cup, but then as the stunties get eliminated, they go into some kind of consolation-bracket tourney where they compete for the stunty championship. You could run this a few different ways too - for example, just having it be last stunty team standing in the regular cup, and if two or more teams end up "tying" for being eliminated in the same round, they play a quick swiss-style against each other, or something like that.

The other thing I agree with is that the format of the ladder overall is very favourable to the more durable and violent teams, so as long as clawpomb remains as effective as it is now, that probably wont change. I think there is a point to be made for the rez format (although I personally dont like it), but I think there are some changes taht could be made to how claw, MB and PO work together that would be fair and better for the game overeall

tl;dr - people care a lot more about a chance to actually win the tourney/prizes, rather than just making the playoffs, so any incentives for specific races need to be planned accordingly. And clawpomb is OP in this format.

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

So whats the word on another world cup? I was hearing buzz that they would wait for LE to come out before this came up, but LE is out for a few weeks now and I'm getting anxious over here!

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

@JRCO said in Season 9?:

Got your point but does that mean you will stop playing if there is no Prize money ?

Aren't you currently playing this season despite there ain't any money on the line ?

If Money is the main motivation, Maybe this is not the game for you cause it won'tmake you rich and maybe at some point it will make no business sense for Cyanide or Focus to put money on that competition. 500 bucs may not be that much, they still need to sell between 10 to 20 copies of the game to amortize that cost.

I believe the business model will not support the prize money indefinitely. And when Money will not be part of the equation anymore, I hope this admin competition with play offs will still be offered and I believe most players will keep on playing it.

No Im not playing this season. Like I said, there are many people, myself included, who only started playing the champ ladder when prizes were introduced. It doesnt mean that those people only play BB to make money. It just means that without the prize incentive, those people prefer to spend their BB time playing in some other way besides the open ladder, or spend their video game time with a different game. As soon as they brought the prizes into the champ ladder, the uptick in interest in the champ ladder, and in the game in general, was noticeable in the community leagues I am a part of. It obviously created some positive buzz, and got more people playing the game, both of which are probably worthwhile for the company at a cost of $1000 every 6 weeks or so.

They had significant prizes up for grabs for the last world cup too, which again seemed to create a lot more interest than there otherwise would have been. Nobody is trying to be a professional BB player on a few hundred dollars of prize money, but the point still stands that a lot of people want it and it makes a difference when it is there.

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

@JRCO said in Season 9?:

@Stringer Bell

What are actually the odds for a player to earn a single penny ? Organised competition with post season play offs is enough motivation... Money is a cherry on the cake that most of us (and by most I mean 99% of us) will never receive.

By that logic, why does any competition need a prize since only a small percentage of people will ever get it? Also, how do you think the lottery exists and gets thousands of people to buy tickets even though its a tiny fraction of a fraction that actually win?

Yes of course some people dont care about the prize money, but obviously many people do. There was even a poll for people to vote on whether they wanted the champ ladder to start asap, or wait a little longer and come back with the prizes, and the prize option won the vote so obviously most people who have not ever won money, and statistically are unlikely to ever win, still care about having a chance at real money.

Also, I dont have any stats to back this up, but I would imagine the stats exist out there somewhere to show that there is much more activity in the champ ladder in seasons where a prize is up for grabs. Anecdotally, I know of many many people, myself included, who only started playing when the prizes were announced.

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

@JRCO Speak for yourself. Bring back the prize money!

posted in BB2 - General Discussion read more

I do think you have an advantage if you can hammer out a bunch of games early on with certain races. Some races actually do quite well when down in TV (I would say skaven for example... getting a free wizard is probably of more value to a skaven team than playing a team with 150k less TV's worth of skills). Others do much better when they aren't out-skilled, like chaos. So sometimes yes, this is an important consideration.

Another issue with the COL format in general is theres a big dis-incentive for most coaches to keep playing after the 3-4 weeks mark because by then, theres a bunch of well-established leader teams who are going to be very hard to overcome, and starting a fresh team to charge through 40 matches in a couple weeks just isn't feasible for most people.

I would like to see a two-tiered season system, where you basically offer up wildcard spots to X number of teams who have the best records AFTER a certain date. This could work with LE, once we have more teams and the playoffs expand, and there are better tools to customize and format leagues.

So it could work like this: 24 teams in LE, the top team from each race across the 6-week season still qualifies (same as now). For the final 8 spots (making it a 32-team playoffs), you take the 8 teams who had the best record over the final 3 weeks of the season. Or even the final 2 weeks. Games played in the final 3 (or 2) weeks would still count for the regular overall standings, but they would also count for the second-half wildcard standings, so that way if you wanted to start a fresh team but didn't have enough time to play all 42 games over the final 2 weeks, you still have a shot. Or say you had a good team from the start of the season but your record is like 20-6-5, and the leading team in that race is locked in at 35-4-3, you still have a chance to qualify with that team based on your performance over the final 2-3 weeks in the wildcard standings.

This way, everyone is incentivized to play until the end, which basically solves both problems. First, you don't have such a big drop in player population after the first couple weeks of the season. Second, you don't have as much of an advantage anymore if you're an early-season grinder, since there will be more people playing fresh teams later in the season with this wildcard system.

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

I mean I gotta say, I didn't exactly have a strong opinion coming into this discussion one way or another as I have not been keeping up with the TV+ debate at all, but the way you're describing it, it basically sounds like the major difference in true TV+ is that you get less inducements the more you win, and more inducements the more you lose, in an effort to keep everyone's win rate close to 50%. If I am understanding that correctly, then no wonder so many people are opposed to that.

I understand that you're saying we could still keep track of player rankings under this system (I assume that rather than looking at overall wins and losses, since we're all supposed to be around 50%, you'd be basically looking at who has the highest "handicap" under the TV+ system - correct me if I'm wrong). But at the end of the day, even if that could theoretically end up producing a more accurate ranking of players across races, why is that preferable to just having the freakin wins and losses tell the story? I can appreciate wanting to make things competitive and fair and get the rankings to be as true and accurate as possible, but when it comes at the expense of equality in terms of what each team gets to bring to the pitch in any given match, that is a bridge too far for me.

If youre looking at two matches, each of which contains one team of TV 1500, and one team of TV 1200, then both those matches should include the same amount of inducement money distributed in the same way. Maybe the TV++ thing makes for more accurate rankings in the long run, but try telling that to the guy who has to face Team X armed with 200k in inducements, while his friend is facing an identical Team X with only 50k inducements, all because of some wins and losses from other, unrelated games. If we were just playing some perpetual ladder format with no immediate concerns like qualifying for playoffs etc, then sure, make TV+ an option for those who want it. But when you are in a tight CCL playoff race and you end up losing a game because your opponent got just enough bonus noob inducements to buy a wizard and then "oops, the kitchen knife swung too far the other way... we'll make sure to correct for that next game!".... gimme a break. At a certain point you gotta just recognize its competition, and someone is always gonna be better than their opponent, and that is a feature, not a bug.

I kinda like the idea of the TV+ system accounting for overall differences between races. For example, everyone knows low TV chaos suck, and low TV skaven/elves are at a big advantage over them. So if you wanna say "All skaven vs chaos matchups below a certain level of TV will give X amount of inducement to the chaos team" based on the data, then I could probably get on board with that. But in terms of adjusting different amounts for each individual game based on the person's record.... no way. Keep it fair for everyone. If you suck at the game, get better. You don't just get free gold to make up the difference. Let the wins and losses speak for themselves. I understand why this would be good for team-based matchmaker environments like overwatch, LoL, etc but BB is one-on-one, and tilting the board in favour of one player over the other is just not in the spirit of this kinda competition IMO.