Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[dode74]

Just to be clear, I'm not the one who said LRB 4 was fine - others were. Seeing as they are the ones saying that the current standard is unacceptable it seems like a reasonable example of what is acceptable. By no means is it perfect, and I personally don't know what "perfect" looks like, but it is a pointer in the right direction.

as evidenced by all numbers from the matchmakers, on Fumbble and Cyanide as well

I'm curious: what numbers?

[Ghost]

The numbers of team distribution amongst the races found in Fumbbles Blackbox and Cyanides Matchmakers. They are available with a little search. And the Sprinttables showing what happens at upper TVs too, where the top of the tables filters out the bad coaches and leaves the results of what is achievable with all the teams accessable to all coaches. The picture here is clear, mutationbashers makes out the vast majority, much more than the amount of such teams should bring out, if things were more even up there.

To me, going forward from the current edition of the rules seems like a perfectly reasonable step. Certain things was improved over LRB 4 (which parts is subjective and highly debateable). What is a fact is, that ageing was stripped, and that the mechanic to make up for the loss of attrition was unevenly distributed. Now not only are the bashers not subject to ageing, they also have the tools that were ment to make up for it. The skills have become more easily accessable and the TV adds less. It is also a fact, how the math stacks in non-linear fashion when bashstacking (as shown by Mattgslater amongst others). And you can't compare it to stacking on throwing, as you wont throw to anywhere near the same degree as you will blitz and block.

[dode74]

Ah, those numbers. They've been looked at in detail and I think that the main problem in both and Cyanide MM is the environment. Matchmaking isn't about winning. It's either about survival or about building your team for a tournament - teams building for the FUMBBL cup is a perfect example. Once team building takes over from winning matches as the imperative then you have a whole new set of incentives driving you towards high TV (and therefore reliable in terms of survivability). I ran the numbers for teams over 30 games played (and therefore considered "developed" by the people in that conversation) and the "games played" by a race correlated pretty well with the "cas caused per cas taken" by a race, but not at all with "win%", suggesting that the imperative wasn't winning the game but maintaining the team.

The high TV sprint is clearly biased, by definition, to teams which are good at sustaining high TV. Sustainment of high TV itself is not a goal unless you make it one, which the sprint does, but that's a house rule and should be treated as such, and you can't really draw any conclusions about the main rules from that. You'll notice that the Junior Sprint is dominated by teams which are best at low TV (which is exactly what you would expect from that house rule).

I agree that the rules can be improved, but BB is a TT game and the base rules can, should, and will (if GW get their way, which they will) be based on TT. Personally I think that digitising the game has given a lot of opportunities for fun variations, and that any LRB 7 should contain a section of suggested house rules for common online variations such as matchmaking. Those rules should not be the base rules though.

[Ghost]

That the Matchmakers and Blackbox isn't about about winning is highly subjective. I will allow myself to have the oposite view to you on this. I think all players want to win (and play to win as the primary objective), and that the average player like to play with different kind of teams.

The Sprinttables might be biased. Nevertheless they do show a huge imbalance in regards to what teams make it to the top of the tables. Based on winning, and some teams avoiding that area of TV, both reasons cause the same problem - lack of variation. All teams could go above TV 1800 if they wanted (maybe except certain fun-teams), but many do not - which is a problem in itself. I have my views on the reason, you seem to have a different one. I think it is due to hardship meeting bash, that those teams can't cope with, or at least will play being the huge underdog. Leading people to only go to upper TVs with bash themselves, or with teams build for coping with bash (which not all teams can do, but elves have means to mitigate being hit, thus they would be one of the better choices)

House ruling or not. I think the game could be improved from its current state. And certainly in regards to bashstacking. Bringing more variation and tactical games relying on (coach) skill and positioning with it.

[dode74]

Well, here's the graph of the data I mentioned:
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af2 ... prNoT3.png
The numbers have been normalised to fit on the graph, and the T3 teams removed. The blue line is percentage of games played and the red line is the "cas for per cas against" line. The yellow line is win%. The teams that win most are played least. That to me speaks of no incentive to win, and plenty of incentive to do other stuff like cause casualties and not take them.

The Sprinttables might be biased. Nevertheless they do show a huge imbalance in regards to what teams make it to the top of the tables.

You can only get to the top of that table by being able to both maintain TV above 1800 (since you have to get matched with a team above 1800 and the bot doesn't know that's what you're after) and win games. Since "maintaining TV" isn't a measure of game balance then this contest is clearly biased towards those teams that can do so. Not all teams are efficient at specific TVs. What might be interesting is a medium sprint (call it a Jog if you like ) which counts games between 1400 and 2200TV, for example.

I think the game could be improved from its current state.

Agreed.

And certainly in regards to bashstacking.

Maybe. We can't say that yet.

[Ghost]

The graph I need more time to look at. But it could also have something to do with more of the better players playing the finesse teams (comparatively). And added to that, on all TVs chaos is not a very impressive team, for instance, to take a mutationbasher. They struggle initially, but as said I will need more time to make up my mind on it.

lol. I like the idea of a jog table. But the problem remains the same. The TV is being manipulated to give you the matchup you want. My belief is, that many teams simply avoid playing against the bashers. What will be more interesting to me, is seeing the results of matchmakers that pair on number of games played. When there will be one fully functional with a lot of participants, it will give us a lot of more usefull information. I predict it will be dominated by bashers too.

It is good that the rules are being discussed. It makes for evolution. The obvious problem here is, that the rulebook is not living anymore. Anyway, there will always be different opinions, so pleasing all is hard I guess. And to make it short; I am not so pleased with the current state on one particular area.

Edit; Well. On that graph. It makes sense to me, that those teams that are best at winning as rookie teams have the highest win%. Most of the bashers have a hard time in the first many games. That the bashers make up for the most played teams are no suprise to me (all tables show that) either. That they win less than elves, who are played less and have a much easiere time winning in the first games, is thus also no surprise. You do have a point in that it is somewhat odd, that the elves are not played more just with a stalled TV. I guess most people don't like to halt the teambuilding though, leading those teams that do good at upper TVs to become the most played as a consequence.

[dode74]

What will be more interesting to me, is seeing the results of matchmakers that pair on number of games played. When there will be one fully functional with a lot of participants, it will give us a lot of more usefull information.

I couldn't agree with you more on this. I honestly think that the TV-based MM has been really bad for the game and has exacerbated a lot of the issues. Perhaps the change to [R ] on FUMBBL is a step towards this and may yield useful data.

I predict it will be dominated by bashers too.

I disagree. I think it will be far more like leagues, which allows any team to compete.

[Ghost]

Well, we will see. There will be less bashers relatively, I agree on that. I do think that at the free for all stage (above a certain number of games played) we will see bashers make up for a lot more, than they should compared to the amount of available races - but time will tell. It is a much more interesting matchmaking mechanism, that is for sure.

[dode74]

Edit; Well. On that graph. It makes sense to me, that those teams that are best at winning as rookie teams have the highest win%. Most of the bashers have a hard time in the first many games. That the bashers make up for the most played teams are no suprise to me (all tables show that) either. That they win less than elves, who are played less and have a much easiere time winning in the first games, is thus also no surprise. You do have a point in that it is somewhat odd, that the elves are not played more just with a stalled TV. I guess most people don't like to halt the teambuilding though, leading those teams that do good at upper TVs to become the most played as a consequence.

The graph only includes teams with 30+ matches, so none of them are rookies. I'd have a hard time disagreeing with your interpretation if that weren't the case, but the fact that there are no rookie teams in there suggests something else.

[Ghost]

Right. Than changes things. Well, they are extracted from a TV matchmaker, right? I guess the reason should still be found in more of the better coaches (comparatively) playing the finesse teams, compared to the non-finesse teams. Coupled with them winning more often with those (comparatively), compared to the non-finesse team. And that the TV is being manipulated to give you the matchup you prefer (for the elves that is mainly outside the upper bash TV). It is highly speculative now, and the reasons might be many. Amongst them, that an elf coach that plays more than 30 games with his team, knows what he is doing. Which is not always the case with bash-teams. To me, it is still the Sprinttables that are the most telling. Not only in who does best, but also in that create for a split environment where there is a lack of variation in upper TVs.

I would like to add one more thing too, though; the more a race is played, the more the win% will naturally levitate towards the 50 % mark. It happens due to the larger distribution of mirromatches. And as said, my belief is, that when the bashers start to shine, the manipulated TV matchmakers will make sure, that they face the team that have a good fighthing chance against them - primarily other bashers. Making it more and more about rolling the best blockdice, AV rolls, and injury rolls, with less and less impact of coach skill.

So the numbers are only based on winnings after the 30 mark is crossed, or do they included winnings from the teams babystages but just only from teams that are now more than 30 games old?

[garion]

Boo that data is a pile of old balls i'm afraid. I remeber Orcs in LRB4 had a sucky win ratio on fumbbl in the same environment. Was this because they sucked? No way, they were widely considered to be the best race in LRB4 if counting all aspects of the game, skill developement, ease of win, ageing, etc... etc... Yet they had a poor win percentage comapred to some other teams so why was this?
Firstly they were the most popular race by miles and miles. Secondly they were and still are something of a noob race. A race that noobs can play with and play badly with and still get a result here and there. To me Chaos, Chaos Dwarf and Nurgle now function in this same way, noobs come to the site, probably start with a team like orcs then get CPOMB'd then join the CPOMB brigade this will dramatically lower their win record, a better analysis is to look at good coaches with these races, look at their win percetages with CPOMB and when they are playing other races against it that do not have CPOMB. That would be far more telling. Similarly the only people that seem to play with elves etc.. in box or MM are people that are good at the game hence their higher than average win percetange.

but anyway, it is impossible to prove CPOMB is too powerful looking at stats, because they are a load of rubbish. So this quest of yours dode is just daft. Bottom line is more and more people every month seem to post threads and blogs about how stupid this combo is and how the whole game now revolves around it. To me this is more telling than anything.

[Ghost]

Again I agree with you Garion. Also the reason, I find the Sprinttables to hold a lot of value - as the top there naturally filters out the bad noob coaches.

I also think, that the sheer amount of discussion on the subject in itself is very telling.

[dode74]

Ghost
The data was taken from FUMBBL. It only includes games beyond the 30-game point.

To me, it is still the Sprinttables that are the most telling. Not only in who does best, but also in that create for a split environment where there is a lack of variation in upper TVs.

Who cares about "upper TV"? Surely games played is more telling. As I said before, high TV and developed are not the same thing.
Sprint tables are a house rule and subject to the destabilising influences that those rules bring in, as I have already pointed out.

Garion

but anyway, it is impossible to prove CPOMB is too powerful looking at stats, because they are a load of rubbish.

Oh please. You're letting your frustration get to you now. All you're really saying here is that you think you are right but you can't prove it, or even show how. The game was balanced around win%, and win% is an easily measurable statistic. There are plenty of other statistics we can use (cas caused vs win%, for example, which I have already done for FOL and shows no real correlation between causing casualties and winning the game) if we first define the issue. As has been said, we're now going to look at skill choice and whether that has been affected. The fact of the matter is that these things can be measured and assessed. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you get to throw it out.

Bottom line is more and more people every month seem to post threads and blogs about how stupid this combo is and how the whole game now revolves around it. To me this is more telling than anything.

And back we go to the appeal to popularity which we had already decided some time ago was not a good measure of anything.

[Ghost]

I care about upper TV. Because that is where the lack of variation is. And it happens for a reason. Not because the other teams (non-bashers) can't go there, but because they make sure not to go there - and that happens for a reason too. You know my opinion as to why, and the Sprinttables back it up - thus that table holds a lot of value.
In a perpetual league, where you can't manipulate your TV to influence who you will meet, you can't avoid the TV 1800 + teams. You can stay under TV 1800 yourself, if you want, but inducements are overpriced as part of an otherwise wellworking mechanic. What happens above TV 1800 is very important, as you will not be able to avoid it in a normal setting.

Just to be clear. It is only winnings after having played 30 games? The results of the first 30 games are not included? And they are not from LRB 4, right?

[garion]

Garion

but anyway, it is impossible to prove CPOMB is too powerful looking at stats, because they are a load of rubbish.

Oh please. You're letting your frustration get to you now. [snip] Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you get to throw it out.
Thats simply not true.
I am not frustrated in anyway. The stats are rubbish it obvious to anyone. I proposed an alternative. Get these stats -
Games played by a coach with a BWR of 170 or higher and their total win percetage with all their races in this environement.
Then get win percetage with their CPOMB teams - then win percetage with CPOMB against other CPOMB and win percentage against non-cpomb teams. It would also be great to know what percentage of games are won when CPOMB play CPOMb by the team that win the coin toss at the start of the game. Also you should only get data from teams that actually have the full combo on at least 1 player.

Now get all that and we would have some interesting reading. Simply looking at win percentage in those divisions is pointless. Because at high TVs CPOMB will be playing CPOMb teams 8 times out of 10. Also elves etc... will be playing most of their games below the 1800 maybe 1600 mark because every time they go over they usually only last a handful of games before they get smashed back down below the 1800 or 1600 mark

Bottom line is more and more people every month seem to post threads and blogs about how stupid this combo is and how the whole game now revolves around it. To me this is more telling than anything.

And back we go to the appeal to popularity which we had already decided some time ago was not a good measure of anything.

No we decided looking at polls is pretty redundant. talking to people that know about the game and have played through previous editions, there is a general feeling that this combo is causing big problems, hence the huge threads blogs etc... that pop up everyweek moaning about this topic, the fact that this thread has even moved in that direction as well like so many others before it speaks volumens too. It is not necessarily that it is too powerful, but more that it has damaged the game.