dode74 wrote:I thought you said that was a relatively poor predictor of a fair match?
It absolutely is a poor predictor of match fairness within the context of the existing TV-based system. Under TVPlus you can match any way you choose and the matchings will eventually be very difficult to predetermine outcome for
so long as TVPlus is used for inducements. The longer a team has played under TVPlus, the more accurate TVPlus is at rating that team, and at generating the required amount of inducement money to balance the team against any other team of any TVPlus level... so in that respect, games played works just fine - it gives teams time to generate a relatively accurate TVPlus rating, and then lets TVPlus do its thing.
If you were to use TV alone for inducements, or not use inducements at all, then games played would be a terrible method for choosing matches, as the numbers you linked demonstrate. It is specifically because TV is a mediocre predictor, and that inducements fail to bridge the gaps in TV differences, that games played is increasingly inaccurate. Under TVPlus the reverse is true.
TVPlus used for matching would work fine, it would just minimize inducements... and when doing so isn't necessary, why wouldn't we let inducemnets run free? I like the idea of increasing the variation seen in matches so long as it does not create painful imbalances, and that's the primary difference in the matching criteria decision.
MattDakka wrote:It should work, as long as you have a great playerbase, on FUMBBL I doubt it would work due to small userbase, there are some teams with over 1000 games played, these would struggle to find a game.
They would not struggle to find a game. As the first point says, there is no hard limit on difference, so 1000 games played can still be matched with anyone, if there's nobody better available. It's also important to note that these points are not to be taken individually - on their own, none of these points will solve anything... only in conjunction with each other would they be guaranteed to do the job.
MattDakka wrote:I have no idea on TVPlus + Inducements, maybe it would work
You can know if it would work by answering a simple question: If I gave you infinity gold to spend on inducements, could you beat the highest TV team you can think of with a gang of snotlings? If yes, then there exists a point between zero and infinity where you have enough inducements to make it a match where either side has an equal chance of winning, depending on how well the coaches manage to adapt to the changing tides of the game. In part, this is why the limits on each inducement would be removed... the limit is more or less silly, and if you had a reroll every turn, 16 wizards, every special play card, and every star player, your snotling team would be pretty nasty.
MattDakka wrote:No injuries or deaths? Then I think people would play oneturner teams in this case, I think playing vs teams with one or more oneturners would become boring after a while, the same goes for playing vs stat-freaks team (WD ST 4, AG 4, ST 5 Bull centaurs with AG 3 Blodge etc.);
Again, the teams those monster teams would be playing against would be just as nutty as them, either though high development or through masses of inducements. Maybe you face a team of insane one-turning elves.... and maybe you drop a fireball on the closest elf every single turn. I suspect those matches wouldn't be boring at all, they'd be slapstick comedy. To avoid that type of thing you'd just have to engage in TV management, as needless TV bloat would go right into the other guy's pocket before each match began.
MattDakka wrote:about no SE, well, since there is no long term attrition and so no need to replace often players, why remove them?
It serves no purpose, and at high TV levels it would discourage coaches from engaging in controlled TV management by way of firing bloaty players to give themselves some breathing room. With a 1M treasury cap you'd have what you needed to rebuild your team at any time.