koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Sep 17, 2016 - 23:52 |
 
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Yeah, I don't know what house rules have to do with a problem that Box is insufficiently random based on the behavior of a few coaches. |
Sure it's random. There are just so few of you that your chances of meeting the "bad guy" are pretty high.
Make a system where more teams are viable at higher TV your chances of meeting a bad guy are reduced.
If you nerf the CPOMB he also won't be so bad.
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | Koadah, what you're effectively proposing is an "bubble" environment where all pixels are less apt to die, that is able to both play with the rest of the division and with other divisions in tournaments.
That (a) doesn't guarantee any more diversity at all, and (b) actually makes it potentially easier to make a cpomb behemoth that you then enter in a tourney that will be using CRP rules. |
Oh all right then. You convinced me. apply the fix everywhere. 
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
You could just say you want a cpomb fix. But we all know that, and it wasn't really what was being discussed. |
You seem to be discussing cheating the system to avoid the guy that you don't like.
That sounds like cheating. Maybe you should all be banned. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:11 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
You seem to be discussing cheating the system to avoid the guy that you don't like.
That sounds like cheating. Maybe you should all be banned. |
I did? News to me.
Please point out to me in any of my posts exactly where I did so.
I'll be waiting. Especially because I have specifically avoided replying to any posts that look like they contain an effort to subvert the "black" (random) nature of the blackbox. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:21 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
You seem to be discussing cheating the system to avoid the guy that you don't like.
That sounds like cheating. Maybe you should all be banned. |
I did? News to me.
Please point out to me in any of my posts exactly where I did so.
I'll be waiting. Especially because I have specifically avoided replying to any posts that look like they contain an effort to subvert the "black" (random) nature of the blackbox. |
That's "you" as in "you guys". If you "specifically avoided replying" to such posts then you must accept that they are occurring. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:30 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
That's "you" as in "you guys". If you "specifically avoided replying" to such posts then you must accept that they are occurring. |
Sure. You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Perhaps though I was merely avoiding being associated with them because my main contention with the box during periods of low activation is that is actually becomes very easy to tell who's putting what in, and monoactivation makes the whole process a very simple case of substitution based logic. You could in fact say, it ... subverts the random nature of the blackbox.
My issue isn't high tv. It isn't cpomb, and it isn't mismatches. It's losing the opacity of the matchmaker. And I've tried to keep clear of the rest of the field discussing those things, or if I felt necessary, responded to your cpomb proposals (simply because sure, if you're gonna test it, roll it out fully, but that's Christer's domain).
My initial disdain for the NA box period and my statement that the box has the perfect setup for "failing" in that timezone is based upon a single precept:
I or anyone else, can basically tell you what the draw will be in advance in a not inconsiderable volume of draws when it is 3am+ BBTime.
Simply put, the draw is already bordering on rigged due to participation levels. |
_________________
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:33 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | If you "specifically avoided replying" to such posts then you must accept that they are occurring. |
Since you haven't really "replied" to "them," must I presume that you accept they are occurring?
They "occur" whether you "reply" to them or not. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:34 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | It's losing the opacity of the matchmaker. |
Blame the small number of players and the chat for that. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 00:37 |
|
The chat isn't a necessary component. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 01:30 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | thoralf wrote: |
Legendary killstacks are hard to develop. |
This is clearly untrue, I saw lots of killstack legends. |
Because you saw lots of legendary killstacks they're easy to develop?
In your thousands of games, you've had six.
OK, you're sweetspotting because you're into win rate, so it's underrepresentative. Still, multiply this by five, that's 30 players out of how many?
176 Star Player Points is lots of dedication, even more if you consider that there's an easy way to make sure killstack monoactivators get less games.
|
I don't know whether I had 6 killstack players, but for sure I'm not a cpomb-only coach, that's a huge difference.
If I played Nurgle only for 2000 matches instead of spreading my games quite evenly amongst several races I would have had more killers for sure.
Really it doesn't take a lot to build killers, if you keep on playing cpomb teams.
If this wasn't true killstack players would be a rare sight, every decently developed cpomb team has 2 or more killers. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 01:46 |
|
hats are cool |
_________________
 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 02:23 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | hats are cool |
The hat isn't a necessary component. |
_________________
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 03:02 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | I don't know whether I had 6 killstack players |
My point was that Legendary killstacks are not that easy to develop. It takes everyone 175+ SPP to get there, whether you are a CPOMB coach or not. Let's say it's 3 times easier to get a CPOMBer, say because there three times more CPOMBers in the top 25 then there are stat freaks and POMBers. It took your last one 69 games.
Assuming it takes 33 games to reach legendary status for a CPOMBer, then playing 33 games is a non-trivial task. At my rate, one needs to play for a month on Fumbbl to get a Legend.
Now, if you can get just one foul with a DP and 3 assists per game, that's 14% of getting a CAS, if I read C's skillstack right. Let's say 5% of hurting him for real. Even with no DP, you still have something like a 2%. Let's just take 3%, it goes well with 69 and 33.
Assuming you start to foul a COMBer as soon as he gets the stack, then you have something like 20 games before he reaches legendary status. That 2% snowballs into a 33%, and 3% gets 46% after 20 games. That's just 20 games, notwithstanding any other kind of block on him, any other try to gangfoul him, or any time a pixel hugger doesn't PO because he sees a DP on the field.
In any case, my point is that 4% leads to 56% and 5% leads to 65%. Therefore, assuming that these guesstimates are remotely plausible, a single gangfoul by a Dirty Player per team can double the odds to hurt a CPOMBer in the long run.
That may not be ideal, but that's what we have. That's what we should do. Otherwise, it's the Tragedy of the Commons all over again.
Were I to bet on a rule change, a Box change or a common realization that CPOMB legend must die, I'd bet on the war cry that ends with "die."
Die, CPOMB, die! |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 03:33 |
|
You don't need a legend for killstack. Block, MB, Claw, PO is 4 skills, which only requires 51 spp. Most killstack players will add Tackle to that by the time they get to 76 spp, which doesn't take very long at all for that sort of player. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 03:49 |
|
Honestly I don't foul if I think it might put my players in bad positions, although I understand that fouling a lot would be good to reduce the cpombers' population.
I think that generally speaking people is not going to foul and risk lose the game just for the greater good of the Box. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 04:17 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Speaking of which, I don't understand why a 1400+ team would not carry at least one DP. It should be a duty for all coaches to keep PO in check. The sheer number of fouls should compensate an efficient killstack, for replacing legends is way more expensive than replacing one-skilled players. |
DP to the head of a clawpomber is great BUT you can very easily do a foul and get no effect or stun and have your player sent off. More often than not you will be worse off. Plus the regular bad guys play so many games they don't seem to mind the odd rebuild, like Rash is doing now (after casualties suffered due to Impacted Animal's clawpombers..).
Mattdakka also correctly points out there is often more than 1 killer.
But DP is still a tool worth taking for a threat on big targets. I've suffered vs its use before when the ref disappears. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 04:52 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | I think that generally speaking people is not going to foul and risk lose the game just for the greater good of the Box. |
There you have it, Matt.
Don't throw stones at Nuffle, Fumbbl, Box, or anyone else before acknowledging that predators are exploiting your own selfishness. If you or anyone who's stuck with the Tragedy of the Commons could never appeal to the Good of the community ever again, that'd be great.
Have you ever read the World of Null-A? It's a good serie, and covers some paradoxes like this one. It's been a while since I've read it, but there's a story that stuck with me. The non-A guys are stuck in a prison, guarded by dreadnoughts. Without even colluding, they all come to the conclusion that they all the colony should blitz the guards. They lose a lot of menz, but in the end they reach the dreadnoughts, and begin firing at the other dreadnoughts.
Were they all thinking about their own sake, they'd still be there, in the prison of van Vogt's world.
If you are tempted to dismiss van Vogt's intuition as mere Sci-Fi, note that it has some theorical merit to it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
