NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - I'll be the first then! (oh yeah, about the handicap table)

NAF World Headquarters

House Rules - I'll be the first then! (oh yeah, about the handicap table)

Dave - Feb 10, 2003 - 01:18 PM
Post subject: I'll be the first then! (oh yeah, about the handicap table)

Why use a handicap table with fixed TR difference. The difference between a TR 300 and TR 400 team will be much smaller than that between a TR 100 and TR 200 team.

Why not use the relative TR

If One TR is 10% higher than the other that other team gets 1 roll

If one TR is twice (or more) as high as the other that other team gets 4 rolls and may choose one.

etc.

I think this balances the Handicap table out much more.

Any comments??

Christer - Feb 10, 2003 - 01:30 PM
Post subject:

I'd say the biggest obstacle in using relative TRs is that it makes the calculations much more difficult.

For example, calculating a difference between TRs is much easier than the percentage...

Example:

Team 1: TR 165
Team 2: TR 187

Easy to see that the difference is 22.. But a quick percentage.. Hmm.. *brings out calculator* Team 2 is ~13% higher.

See what I mean?

-- Christer

Milo - Feb 10, 2003 - 09:58 PM
Post subject:

The simple answer is: Math is hard.

I've seen enough coaches have problems with calculating Team Rating without needing to complicate the Handicap table by using percentages. Also, if the rules are working properly, teams with 400TR should be more or less a thing of the past. I don't think the advantage of switching to percentages would outweigh the disadvantages inherent in a more complex calculation system.

Christer - Feb 10, 2003 - 11:01 PM
Post subject:

Not a thing of the past I'm afraid:

Terrifying Anarchists of Naggaroth

-- Christer

Milo - Feb 11, 2003 - 07:11 AM
Post subject:

There's an exception that proves every rule. You'll note, though, that he hasn't been playing other teams that are even close to his level. If they play someone that's TR300 or less, that coach would be a fool to not choose the "Virus" handicap result, which would prevent 9 of his 16 players from participating in the game! Plus you'd get FOUR more random rolls on the Handicap table. I can't see how a TR300 team, going up against only 7 opposing players, only a couple of which are truly spectacular, with 4 rolls on the handicap table, couldn't cripple the remaining 7 players, much less pull off an easy win.

Milo

BlanchPrez - Feb 11, 2003 - 08:10 AM
Post subject:

I have to disagree with your statement that he hasn't been playing teams near his TR. That looks like a list of his teams entire history starting at TR100, and it looks like the last couple of games were close to his TR.

Chris

Milo wrote:

Milo - Feb 11, 2003 - 08:36 AM
Post subject:

In his games since he hit 300 TR, he has played opponents on average that were 103.24 TR lower than his. The smallest TR margin was 31, and the highest was 239. Do you consider a TR 200 team playing against a TR 100 team "playing teams near his TR"? What about a TR 300 team and a TR 200 team? The difference is not that much different when you're talking TR 400 vs TR 300.

Admittedly, this may be because there's no one in his league who has as high a TR as he does. I'm not suggesting that he's intentionally picking on weaker teams. But I'd suggest he may not have played a significant challenge yet. And again, if I play a team like his and get 101+ point handicap, I'm picking Virus EVERY TIME. It would literally gut his team.

Milo

Christer - Feb 11, 2003 - 09:07 AM
Post subject:

Yes, the problem here is that our league doesn't play with handicaps because of them not being supported in the client we use.

And yes, choosing "Virus" is a no-brainer.

Anyhow. That's just an example of a TR 400+ team. FUMBBL has a couple of teams with near 300 rating which are in much better shape.

-- Christer

Milo - Feb 11, 2003 - 09:16 AM
Post subject:

Ah -- well, not playing with Handicaps will certainly skew the results. Handicaps are intended to bring big teams down a couple of pegs (at least for individual games) and give lower TR teams a much needed boost. Playing without them will clearly favor the established team.

In that case, I don't think we should use teams from FUMBBL as examples for this sort of discussion. Since this team would have been hit by a virus as often as not if they were playing in a real league, they would have a) lost many more games, b) not earned as much money, c) suffered more casualties as a result of being outnumbered on the pitch and d) probably retired a player or three to reduce their TR voluntarily and get them out of the high handicap ranges. Are there any leagues using the full LRB2.0 ruleset who have experienced teams growing to this size? I'd love to see a real life example.

skummy - Feb 11, 2003 - 09:19 AM
Post subject:

The highest our league has seen in about 30 games of play and using strict LRB rules is a 215. We have had tournament winners drop by as much as 50 points due to injury and aging.

Milo - Feb 11, 2003 - 09:21 AM
Post subject:

Our goal was to develop the rules to a point where an experienced team would oscillate from the 250-350 range, where a team might fall out of that range on either end for a brief period, but not for long.

Grumbledook - Feb 11, 2003 - 11:20 AM
Post subject:

Ok then my choas dwarfs have yet to play a match having an advantage of more than 20 tr hence no handicaps would have been given away. They are at 230ish right now, if i carry on in the same vein and get to tr400 or whatever, would you consider that as valid results?

Milo - Feb 11, 2003 - 11:24 AM
Post subject:

Grumble -- they would be an excellent example, if you can actually reach that level. But if you're not giving any handicap away, you're playing against other equally good teams. The rules were intended to prevent one team from running away with the league, which it doesn't sound like yours are.

Milo

Grumbledook - Feb 11, 2003 - 11:30 AM
Post subject:

Yer thats cause i haven't been playing much, been spending my time getting my team painted up in time for the blood bowl ;]

BlanchPrez - Feb 11, 2003 - 12:38 PM
Post subject:

I see... obviously I was not reading the listing right. My apologies than. Cool

Chris

Milo wrote:

wouterkuyper - Feb 12, 2003 - 06:08 AM
Post subject:

I don't think choosing 300 and 400 is a good example....what about these 2 examples:
100 TR vs 110 TR = 10 difference: 1 handicap-roll
also 1:1.1 resulting in 1 handicaproll

This gives the same result and i think as it should be, a 110 team is quite a bit better than a 100k team, but:

190 vs 200

This is in my opinion not too important difference on the field:

200-190 = 10 gives 1 handicap roll
200/190 = about 1.05 gives no handicap rolls

i think the percentage-thing gives you better results...
If you can't do the math, bring a calculator...

W

Grumbledook - Feb 12, 2003 - 08:10 AM
Post subject:

110 is practically the same as a 100

when i start a new team i have no problems with playing to 20 higher, at 110 at most your only going to have 1 extra skill and thats assuming you didn't get much in the way of winnings as well

wouterkuyper - Feb 12, 2003 - 08:14 AM
Post subject:

Hmm, i think with 110 you could have a player and or 1/2 skills more then your 100k opponent...i think that is quite a difference...

but even if you don't find it that great a difference, don't you find it a greater difference than 200-210?

W

Grumbledook - Feb 12, 2003 - 08:24 AM
Post subject:

well currently 10 tr won't give away a handicap roll and this seems fine to me, teams within that sort of range are balenced well enough, assuming there aren't any missing players.

Blank_Page - Feb 12, 2003 - 02:02 PM
Post subject: Great Idea!

I'll try and get the TBBF to agree to do this!

and those of you who think it hard math, gimme a break.

The amount of cell hpone out there nowadays with calculators built in...

Dave - Feb 13, 2003 - 04:07 PM
Post subject:

AND it can be done quite easy.

Take 10 % of the lowest TR, and check how many times that fits into the difference.

Goes really fast out here doens't it wouterkuyper ??

Darkson - Feb 14, 2003 - 09:51 PM
Post subject:

Surely someone with a bit more technical savvy than me could knock together a colour coded table based on %?

Dave - Feb 16, 2003 - 05:37 AM
Post subject:

anyone?? (Not me, sorry)

Krag_Ironwood - Mar 14, 2003 - 12:21 PM
Post subject:

The League that I'm currently running has the problems of some monster team ratings difference Eg. the highest TR is 220 when the average is about 140. I am finding that the Handycap chart isn't helping.
I'm currently using the living rule book ver 2.0 and have thought about increasing the number of rolls on the handy cap table, But it has nothing to really take a high TR team down very enough to make the match competive?

How do I fix it suggestion please ?
need to know for the next league to be run properly.

MasterOfChaos - Feb 09, 2004 - 03:16 AM
Post subject:

Christer.

Don't take this the wrong way, but.. as a retired (cos I got pissed off with it) player of FUMBBL I can tell you for absolute certainty that the terrifying whatevers of Wherever would NEVER EVER hapen in a real league.

You can't deny that the "rolling" of dice on FUMBBL is relative to actual rolling, and with the one or two little rules that are on FUMBBL or used to be there when that team had many of it's games would in fact contribute a LOT to it's current state.

Two that I can remember.

Incorrect BLITZ results on the Kick Off table (FUMMBL used to have it wrong wrong wrong)

No handicap table. This doesn't make a huge difference very often but it CAN change things when you have a TR as high as that and are giving away 2 maybe 3 handicap rolls to your opponents every game.

Also, I heard (rumour only) that the coach was VERY selective about who he played, and spent a lot of time playing online anyway. Any coach with that many options open to him woud probably build a a team quite well too. Truth is in any real league there's maybe a dozen players if you're lucky. Something GW could remedy if they sold the goddamgame and promoted it instore (Attn GW marketing ppl, you're all tossers BTW).

That said. FUMBBL is a great little game and I spent quite a few happy hours there. It's just not the same. If GW had an asses idea what people in the world wanted then perhaps they'd get it together and make a decent online version with kickass graphics and a better feel about it. Apart from anything they'd make a hell of a lot of money if they charged anentry fee into online tournaments and a monthly fee just to play online.
Not to mention the $50+ for a start up game plus $10 or $20 for each team add on you wanted to buy. I think a big part of it is that GW clone and brainwash all of their staff in to believing whatever they tell them to, and also train them to ignore people who stillwant to play old games.

But typically GW are clowns, and continue to overlook modern avenues of profit for what they still label a dead game. 40K and WFB are NOT the only games inthe world.

Zombie - Feb 09, 2004 - 03:22 AM
Post subject:

Are you Toby?

Dave - Feb 09, 2004 - 03:27 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

Are you Toby?

MasterOfChaos - Feb 10, 2004 - 12:38 AM
Post subject:

Toby I aint.

Damon is the name.

sann0638 - Dec 03, 2013 - 01:57 PM
Post subject:

Came here via the link in Dave's signature. This is topic number 2 however (check the address if you click on p1 of this thread). Where is topic 1? We demand to know!

Dave - Dec 03, 2013 - 02:14 PM
Post subject:

lol .. now you can't get any worst thread necromancy than this on this forum ...