Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[cbbakke]

Do you bother to read what people say in reply to you? Dode even put the link in his post.

I am asking him a simple question, because he has tried to float data pulled out of TV based MM that supports his opinion. Very simple question. Do you agree that data from that format is not useful?

[dode74]

Oh, so it was a tangent and nothing to do with the data actually being purported as useful. Ok.

I did already answer your question, btw -> viewtopic.php?p=614929#p614929

ALL of PC-based BB is a poor place to pull data from for the reasons stated. None of the leagues (which are better but still not great) have produced sufficient data (i.e. 4k+ games, although I'd prefer nearer 40k) for me to even bother putting together data. When producing stats for FOL I do try to note that they are FOL-only stats and not indicative of CRP BB. If, however, even the piss-poor context of badly-ruled TV-based MM is producing data that is in or close to the win% bracket then I think that is indicative of the robustness of the rules.

[cbbakke]

So if the numbers work out the way you like you will use the data and if not you will blame the system. That my friend is exactly the problem.

Regardless of what the numbers say, using data from TV base MM system is useless. Your taking numbers from a broken system based on if they fall in the range you like.

[dode74]

I don't want to get into an argument with you yet again, but that is not what I said. Let me try to clarify:

(a) If the numbers are right in playtesting and leagues using the full rules (i.e. TT, not PC) then there can be no arguing with the design goals being met.
(b) If the numbers are also right in playtesting and leagues using slightly modified or different rules (e.g. PC leagues) then those rules are quite robust, but the design goals are only met as well if (a) is also true.
(c) If the numbers are also right in playtesting, leagues, and other formats (e.g. TV-based MM) then the rules are very robust, but only if (a) and (b) are true can we say that the design goals are met as well.

Currently we have (c), and no conclusions can be drawn. Is that clear enough for you?

Now can we get back on topic please? What was ACTUALLY SAID regarding ACTUAL DATA was by Darkson, back here -> viewtopic.php?p=614893#p614893
The data he was referring to was this -> http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/LRB6Stats.htm
Whether this would fall under a, b or c above is up for debate - I don't know exactly what data was gathered under what rules, so I am uncertain.
The comment made by Darkson was that the required win% (i.e. balance) brackets were placed by Galak and the BBRC, i.e. they were a design goal. I know you (and others) don't like that, but then we go back to the fact that a Mini is not a Ferrari because it is not designed to be one, and T3 teams don't do as well as T1 teams because they aren't designed to - the game is designed this way on purpose. If you don't like it then house rule it; I'd suggest plasmoid's NTBB as a start.

[cbbakke]

Your giving a 500 word response to a simple question.

[dsavillian]

I seriously hope you guys are just trolling everyone.

At least that way it'd be funny in the end.

[voyagers_uk]

why not just change the spps awarded for an action

completed pass 2 spps (to encourage passing)
casualty 1 spp (any idiot can hurt an opponent)
Interception 2 spps (this event is a game changer and should be rewarded)
touchdown 3 spps
MVP 5 spps

by making this simple change you automatically alter the dynamic and encourage ball movement

[dode74]

Your giving a 500 word response to a simple question.

It's not a "simple" question. Your question was:

Do you agree that data from that format [MM] is not useful?

My response is that it has limited usefulness, as detailed above. Perhaps such out-of-context questions would be better either in their own thread or by PM, cbbakke? It seems that others don't appreciate thread drift of this sort (and I can empathise).

I seriously hope you guys are just trolling everyone.

At least that way it'd be funny in the end.

I'm not, sadly. I'm just answering the questions being asked of me (whether they are non sequiturs or not). I may be being trolled though

[garion]

why not just change the spps awarded for an action

completed pass 2 spps (to encourage passing)
casualty 1 spp (any idiot can hurt an opponent)
Interception 2 spps (this event is a game changer and should be rewarded)
touchdown 3 spps
MVP 5 spps

by making this simple change you automatically alter the dynamic and encourage ball movement

I think the problem with that is teams like wood elves that start with 2 Wds 1 Catcher, the rest linemen, can just Spam passing all game till they want to score. I already do it to get all my players on 1 spp by the end of game 2. If it was 2 SPP i would just stand at the back of the pitch and get all my players their first skill within 4 games. I think the SPP distribution is fine as is really.


However yu could award an extra spp for throwing long passes and long bombs. That way teams will not spam passing for no reasons and there is a risk involved.

[spubbbba]

why not just change the spps awarded for an action

completed pass 2 spps (to encourage passing)
casualty 1 spp (any idiot can hurt an opponent)
Interception 2 spps (this event is a game changer and should be rewarded)
touchdown 3 spps
MVP 5 spps

by making this simple change you automatically alter the dynamic and encourage ball movement

I think the problem with that is teams like wood elves that start with 2 Wds 1 Catcher, the rest linemen, can just Spam passing all game till they want to score. I already do it to get all my players on 1 spp by the end of game 2. If it was 2 SPP i would just stand at the back of the pitch and get all my players their first skill within 4 games. I think the SPP distribution is fine as is really.


However yu could award an extra spp for throwing long passes and long bombs. That way teams will not spam passing for no reasons and there is a risk involved.

How about ST2 or less get 3 spp's for a cas and AG2 or less get 2 spp's for a completion?

Might encourage bashy team to pass more and agile ones to bash more.

[dode74]

Changing SPP distribution is an interesting idea. I do think that TDs are undervalued, espacially compared to cas (really, it's worth 2/3 of a TD?). I think that the odds of causing a cas are still lower than the odds of most passes (3+, 3+ for a QP with AG3!), but then you have a much lower chance of turnover with most (sensible) blocking attempts than with most (sensible) passing attempts.

2d block on an AV8 opponent where both players have block or wrestle (I'd consider this an "average" block which I would be happy to make) has a 2.57% chance of causing a cas and a 2.77% chance of a turnover (no RRs).
Short pass with AG4 players (I think most people would play this if it helped secure their position) is 3+, 2+, so a 55% chance of success and a 45% chance of a turnover (no RRs).
The odds in each case are roughly equal between SPP gaining-success and turnover, so I am left wondering why it is that passes give half the SPP of casualties.
The risk of (turn-ending, and possibly game-losing) failure for passing is much higher than that of the risk of failure for making a block, which is possibly why people have little-to-no fear of making a block, but a substantial (and substantiated?) fear of passing. There is also the fact that when blocking only one of the rolls can be failed to cause a turnover, so a TRR will reduce the risk dramatically (to 0.07% in the above example - a 97% reduction), whereas failing either the pass or the catch roll will cause a turnover, so a TRR won't have as much effect to reduce the risk (down to 17% with a TRR - a 62.5% reduction). This will reduce the incentive to pass unless using only players with passing RR skills (pass/catch) where available, or at least one such player.
In short, I am saying that passing and blocking are comparable in terms of risk/reward (turnover vs SPP gain), and arguably passing is the riskier action overall. People will block lots and cause a few cas and a few TOs, and they will pass rarely and gain few SPP from it and cause few TOs.

I would consider as a house rule making the SPP for passing the same as the SPP for causing a cas. Whether that should be 1 or 2 is a highly debatable question, but given the fact that you only get 3SPP for a TD I would argue that 1 may be the better option. An alternative would be to make them both 2SPP and make TDs 4SPP, but I don't know if this would require a shifting of the skill-up SPP required. I think the second option might make for a more dynamic league over shorter terms, which would probably be more popular as it would seem less of a grind. There may be balance issues for the high-scoring teams in leagues, but this might be a good solution to incentivise agi teams in the bash-fest which is the MM-type league.

[spubbbba]

ALL of PC-based BB is a poor place to pull data from for the reasons stated. None of the leagues (which are better but still not great) have produced sufficient data (i.e. 4k+ games, although I'd prefer nearer 40k) for me to even bother putting together data. When producing stats for FOL I do try to note that they are FOL-only stats and not indicative of CRP BB. If, however, even the piss-poor context of badly-ruled TV-based MM is producing data that is in or close to the win% bracket then I think that is indicative of the robustness of the rules.

Funny thing is I feel a bit wary of the TT league games used to balance lrb5/6 for similar reasons. There are quite a lot of games played but when you break it down across 24 teams and tv ranges (say rookie, mid and high) it’s not all that many.

By the way where can I see those broken down by racial match ups and TV ranges?

We also don’t know the level of experience of the players taking part or if the leagues had house rules either explicit (no stars to non-stunties, chosen MVP’s) or implicit (frowning on fouling or stalling).

TV based random match ups as used by cyanide and fumbbl’s division are useful for looking at teams that are roughly equal which is a good place to start. Both versions now have leagues that whilst not perfect are pretty close to the full rule set. Plus we have no guarantee that the TT leagues and players got the rules correct either.


Oh and for changing spp’s I like the idea of bonus points for unlikely actions. Something like 1 spp for a pass that needs a natural 6 that you get on the 1st roll and the receiver goes on to score without dropping the ball. Or you get a cas vs a player at least ST 4 and AV8+ not using any modifiers such as MB, PO, claw, niggles or stunty. It could be for players 31 spp or more or worth 150K+ as well.

[koadah]

why not just change the spps awarded for an action

completed pass 2 spps (to encourage passing)
casualty 1 spp (any idiot can hurt an opponent)
Interception 2 spps (this event is a game changer and should be rewarded)
touchdown 3 spps
MVP 5 spps

by making this simple change you automatically alter the dynamic and encourage ball movement

Don't really like it.

Black orcs, CWs etc take long enough to get going as it is.

An elf could just sit in the back field and pass to a guy who then hands the ball back to him. You could skill up rookies at will with out even bothering with TDs.

[voyagers_uk]

buit surely everyone is taking bash/running teams at the moment and C-POMB is wrecking our game.... BASH is the winning style.... so resdistribute the spps gathering and make it harder to reach that style and harder to replace once you lose a player.

yes Elves will accumulate skills quicker, and hit spiralling exp faster and then get crushed and quickly rebuild.

Bash teams will take ball skills as well as kill skills and therefore be more balanced.

it seems elegant rather than redoing skills....

[garion]

C-POMB is wrecking our game.... BASH is the winning style....

Yes and no for me, Yes CPOMB games are just sooo boring it's unbelievable. They have taken away the whole positioning fun of the game and the challange of playing some bash teams. Yes for me it is wrecking the game and because the odds are so high for removing players from the pitch you do get the occasionall game where you have lost 5 BH+ before your third turn.

But generally I don't think I agree with the winning style part. Personally I have had just as great success with elves as I have bash, possibly with the exception of Chaos Dwarves (think I had close to a 20 game winning streak with them) who should never ever have been allowed to get Claw. They really are just too good now imo. But anyway. The other reason I wouldn't like passing to be such a great way of getting SPP is that bash teams have the worse selection of inducements (apart form Dwarves), it has always seemed to me that inducements were based largely on 'finese teams' being the under dog, they can make far greater use of the inducements whether it be 2 babes, extra apoths, Wizard 9 (who is ridiculously effective for ag4 high movement teams), Eldril (wow this guy is amazing). While the bash teams/versatile teams have to rely largely on chainsaws and bribes when they are the underdog, babes aren't very useful because they usually have a high av, Wizard isn't that great because its harder for them to capitalise on a loose ball. and by and large the bash teams have terrible star players, except dwarves who despite being one of the best teams in the game have an amazing selection of star players that are really cheap too.

and I don't think bash teams would take more ball playing skills, just surehands as always and leave it at that.