A better suggestion to improve racial variety (perpetual)

[Smeborg]

Thanks, guys, for a most interesting discussion. Taking into account everyone's suggestions, I think the answer is simply to reduce attrition across the board by a modest quantum. For the sake of good order, I am moving this to a 3rd thread.

All the best.

[Chris]

Don't really agree with that (your concluesion that is)...

[dode74]

For games per team, there is a massive drop for all teams except Chaos at 2000+ in B. Most teams have more games per team at 1500 than at all TVs, and far fewer at 2000+. I don't find that massively surprising, and it adds credence to the hypothesis that some teams get parked or that some teams just stay at lower TVs.

Again, though, I question whether this is an issue which the rules themselves can/should change, or whether it is an issue with TV-based MM only.

I'm with Chris regarding Smeborg's solution - I really don't think you can draw that one yet.

[Chris]

The point was made about at low TVs teams like Chaos are sub optimal - but of course develope well and so people take them with an eye to eventual up skilling. If there end game is reduced would that not cascade down through the ratings?

I would be interested to see if anyone can understand the stats for how each team does over tv development with regards to win rate and now the newly revealed 'dishing it out and not taking it' factor. Affecting either of those factors would presumably alter the popularity (I know we have seen win rate as not as important but it is needed for balance). You would also see how each team does at different TVs as we know some teams level off faster than others.

[dode74]

Data for each race's win% vs TV can be got here.

I might take a look at racial stats at each TV for win%, cas for/against and games played from Koadah's data if I get time.

[dode74]

Looking at Koadah's data today I split it down into 200TV tiers (0-1000, 1000-1200 up to 2400+; there is no overlap of the data so nothing is duplicated) and looked at each race and TV tier for win% and cas differential to see if there was a correlation between either games played as a whole of all games played at that TV, or with games played by that race (which I think is more significant as it shows what TV races tend to stay at.

Looking at games played overall vs win% for T1-1.5 teams there was a significant positive correlation (r>0.666) for 5 teams (Zon, Lizard, Necro, Nurgle, Undead).
Looking at games played overall vs cas difference for T1-1.5 teams there was a significant positive correlation (r>0.666) for 12 teams (Zon, Chaos, Pact, HE, Human, Lizard, Necro, Norse, Nurgle, Skaven, Slann, Undead). Eight of these showed R>0.9, so some very strong correlations.

Looking at games played by the race vs win% for T1-1.5 teams there was a significant positive correlation (r>0.666) for 4 teams (Dwarf, Lizard, Orc, Undead).
Looking at games played by the race vs cas difference for T1-1.5 teams there was a significant positive correlation (r>0.666) for 14 teams (everyone except Chaos, CD, Elf, HE, Nurgle, Underworld).

From that it seems that teams tend to play at the TV at which they will take the least and dish out the most casualties rather than the TV at which they win more games. Whether this is the intent of the coaches or the result of a game mechanic (attrition beating some teams down to lower TVs) I can't say.

[juck101]

It may be that this disparity over TVs is a MM-only issue, too - there is no TV segregation in leagues.

Possible miss quote but I think all along that was soemthing missing from the LRB 5 changes that the older fumbbl mm system was kinda redudant data as you could pick what you fancied. This entire thread hangs around diversity but surley to some extent if you can pick your opponent then you can manipulate the environment in which you play.

Even in the MM system that picks equal ratings you dont have to worry about some of the more extreme situations. If you ignore all this nonsense and play in a league I find the problem is far less significant. Therefore this is still a fix for something which might not be a problem if you just play a league.

Still some great insights and frankly if POMBCLaw is 8 times more powerfull as a combo then its worth looking into to some extent

[stormmaster1]

So if the problem is not enough Ag at high TV then waht about looking at different ways of altering this. Boosting money availible could make it easier for elves to afford replacements. Couple this with some team building bonuses in place of cards or star players or something else to protect against permanant injury and you have a few boosts to high tv ag sides.

[stormmaster1]

Or rules which made having a bench a viable option both more affordable and competitive would protect light teams

[Smeborg]

I have reached the provisional conclusion that as the problem (if there is one) appears restricted to TV matched online perpetual environments, there is nothing to fix, therefore I am not playtesting any new rules in our "perpetual" open league.

Should similar dynamics appear in a our league, other tabletop leagues, or in any perpetual environment which is truly open (i.e. not TV matched), then this might suggest we have an underlying problem worth looking at.

Also, without any clear consensus on what rules to test, testing may not be fruitful at this time.

All the best.

[swilhelm73]

Or rules which made having a bench a viable option both more affordable and competitive would protect light teams

The problem is, any modification to make bench "cheaper" advantages elves, who already are better at winning the game.

[Hitonagashi]

I have reached the provisional conclusion that as the problem (if there is one) appears restricted to TV matched online perpetual environments, there is nothing to fix, therefore I am not playtesting any new rules in our "perpetual" open league.

Should similar dynamics appear in a our league, other tabletop leagues, or in any perpetual environment which is truly open (i.e. not TV matched), then this might suggest we have an underlying problem worth looking at.

Also, without any clear consensus on what rules to test, testing may not be fruitful at this time.

All the best.

Fully agree.

[dode74]

I have reached the provisional conclusion that as the problem (if there is one) appears restricted to TV matched online perpetual environments, there is nothing to fix, therefore I am not playtesting any new rules in our "perpetual" open league.

Should similar dynamics appear in a our league, other tabletop leagues, or in any perpetual environment which is truly open (i.e. not TV matched), then this might suggest we have an underlying problem worth looking at.

Also, without any clear consensus on what rules to test, testing may not be fruitful at this time.

All the best.

Fully agree.

+1

[Valmar]

Interesting debate (sorry for apply my regenerate RR bump here)

Hello all —new in the forum— and sorry for my bad English.

I play online but mostly friendly leagues (against some guys I even know personally because live in my own city; others ofc not), and I don't enjoy or don't find myself happy in a MM TV environment like cyanides game or even BB in Fumbbl (and they look like extremely the opposite as TT feeling). I play some games here and there, and of course I will more, but I got more fun in reduced leagues. Just a personnal decission I don't have anything against the other. I find myself friendly leagues (even online) at least got something perhaps similar as the amazing flavour of TTs, more diversified races, nice talks more often than not, and so on. I don't find that great sensation in TV-matchmaking leagues (so I only play them when I'm in need of a game and don't have another option available).

My two cents here (repeat: without playing at high TVs in fumbble or MM in cyanide) is I think it's a bad thing to have an incredible ammount of clawpombers in perpetual TVmatching leagues. It's true that as some guys said before, if you make any big nerf, then they will be change for orcs and dwarves and the like. We will got the same problem, with other races. And if you nerf them somehow, then it will be elves-territory.

Any solution could be bad, perhaps.

Two crazy —I repeat "CRAZY as hell"—ideas.

a) A changing scenario in perpetual leagues, like house rules. There will be times some races are better, and there will be times others will be. For a TT league this won't work I think, but for an online TV matched based environment, perhaps it's even fun and brings more diversity.
Of course I'm not a "theorical" and don't have the experience you all guys got, so call me just a dreamer. Also I don't have the BB knowledge or imagination enough to know if such a thing works. I'm inclined to think not. But who knows, perhaps any of you older players read this and find a great idea.



b) Nerfing pilingon, with something similar as chainshaw.

b.1) If you use piling on, you got 1/6 injurying yourself (!) (you can RR this).
That could force to think twice about rerolling a push-push, because if you use the RR there, you should not be able to reroll a posible 1 later. The adding effect is if you got many clawpombers, the effect could be cumulative because you will need a RR at hand, or just try luck with not rolling a 1 in any of you. Eventually, if you piling on a lot, it will happen.
I'm pretty sure many of you will think this would be an extremely nerf and nobody will use it, and perhaps you're right. I dunno, please take it in a good way, I'm just trying to help throwing some ideas there.

b.2) Another possibility could be to trear piling on like a "secret weapon". Not necessary the same way (ref out/bribes system), just making it more risky.


I hope that helps. Sorry again for my bad English, and again take into account I'm not an experienced BB player —I'm still learning to play well—, so take my words for what they worth and not more

Hello again to all.
Nice topic.