KennethCole
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 03:27 |
 
|
Great work Pac....do Zon's next  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 13:30 |
|
| KennethCole wrote: | | Great work Pac....do Zon's next |
Done, as requested! |
|
|
chattytumbler
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 13:44 |
|
Great Work Pac! Has stopped me annoying people in the chat room when I eventually fluke my way up to a skill roll.
I love the fact that there is no much 'fluff' available on Fumbbl - from seeing who are the best coaches, teams and players to being able to watch the best (and worst) matches around.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Disraeli (or Mark Twain, depending on which web site you are looking at!) |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 13:49 |
|
| Plorg wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | Plorg wrote: | | pac wrote: | Interesting opinion.
But wrong.
Take Block first. |
For Trolls on Goblin teams (who DO take crucial actions such as TTMs),
Pro is debatably better than Block.
Same with Trees on Fling teams. |
Even in that instance, Pass would be better than Pro |
Not for Big Guys who have to both block and TTM
(and pass Really Stupid/Take Root rolls). |
We will have to agree to differ on this one I think.
I would take Block (before Pro) on all non-Stunty teams and on an LRB- Stunty team I would consider Pass ahead of Pro too, but that's just my opinion, which I will also leave there to avoid hijacking the thread further  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 14:05 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | We will have to agree to differ on this one I think.
I would take Block (before Pro) on all non-Stunty teams and on an LRB- Stunty team I would consider Pass ahead of Pro too, but that's just my opinion, which I will also leave there to avoid hijacking the thread further |
I'd take Dodge and then Side Step … |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 15:37 |
|
Undead are up - complete with a clash of Mummy styles between the SS+Dodge and Frenzy+SF schools of thought. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 15:51 |
|
Great work, really, impresive (and may be even a good idea)
I have a cuestion, on the doubles information. Have you considered the (posible) difference on 1st skill roll being a Double and 1st Double rolled for a player. May be it's not relevant in those teams, I haven't checked it, but it's a relatively common cuestion in the forum
someting in the line of "I rolled a double for my rookie 'thing' should I take it or pick Block?" and knowing if those teams take the doubles allways or not and for what players may help some noobs
again, good work |
|
|
Pmg
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 16:00 |
|
That was a lot of hard work indeed... but reading through the entire topic, ufff... Your skill selections do not include Malthor's woodies, PeteW teams, Major Tounament winners, but include teams with barely 50% win percentage with tons of games and you were even thinking about deleting that criteria?
You guide could be usefull if it had a selection of skills that could help a team to win, thus taking ideas from top coaches who get amazing results, not average coaches with average teams that played hundreds of games with only reasonable results.
Get 30 gamed teams from Malthor, PeteW, Smess, Flix, etc... and you will get THE skill table that would REALLY mean something. |
Last edited by Pmg on %b %24, %2007 - %16:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 16:01 |
|
| nin wrote: | | I have a cuestion, on the doubles information. Have you considered the (posible) difference on 1st skill roll being a Double and 1st Double rolled for a player. May be it's not relevant in those teams, I haven't checked it, but it's a relatively common cuestion in the forum |
Very good point. I've just finished Lizardmen - for whom Saurus are a case in point. I've had this in mind, but I haven't noticed it making a difference during the survey.
Of course, if a coach did turn down a double for Block (as with turning down stat ups), it's not easy for the survey to spot it. You could make a statistical estimate on it, but that still wouldn't tell you the conditions under which the stat was turned down. I think that sort of thing needs to be covered by another sort of guide. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 16:15 |
|
| Pmg wrote: | | That was a lot of hard work indeed... but reading through the entire topic, ufff... Your skill selections do not include Malthor's woodies, PeteW teams, Major Tounament winners, but include teams with barely 50% win percentage with tons of games and you were even thinking about deleting that criteria? |
No, I wasn't thinking about deleting that criterium.
PeteW's teams don't get in because they're all retired - and he never had any old teams anyway.
Malthor's teams - well, I think they have been discussed implicitly earlier in this thread. There has to be a way to exclude teams which play a pretty nonsensical selection of opponents. Have a look at the list of Orc [R] teams with most games played. There's a team there with a 78% win record - whose coach only plays games arranged by site PM. Do you want them in?
At least one Major winner (Nandorins) is in there. However, many Major winners are 'purpose built' - that is, teams with about 40-50 games who are on their first upswing in development. So they don't provide much data. Lots of Smack winners are in there, however.
As with Freppa before (who approached this from the opposite point of view), I acknowledge a lot of your points - but you aren't proposing an alternate set of criteria. Instead, you've just named an arbitrary list of coaches. Should only teams with a coach above CR 17x be included?
| Quote: | | You guide could be usefull if it had a selection of skills that could help a team to win, thus taking ideas from top coaches who get amazing results, not average coaches with average teams that played hundreds of games with only reasonable results. |
And I'm sure all the coaches whose teams have been covered in the survey love you too.
Edit: One final point. I just flicked through the Past Players lists of some of Smess' and Flix's older teams. No especially noticeable differences in selection from the teams included in the review. IMO, once you pass a certain level of competence/experience, there is only a very fractional difference among skill selection decisions (except in a few well-known situations where there are two or more diverging schools of thought). It really doesn't matter that much which particular teams are covered. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi
Last edited by pac on %b %24, %2007 - %16:%May; edited 2 times in total |
|
Arktoris
Joined: Feb 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 16:17 |
|
| Pmg wrote: | | Get 30 gamed teams from Malthor, PeteW, Smess, Flix, etc... and you will get THE skill table that would REALLY mean something. |
I agree with Pac about limiting it to 100+ game teams. The survivors are the role models.
The only minor thing I would change about his criteria is making sure the w/l wasn't due to playing down or elfballing. If they have a high TS debt or clearly picky about their opponents, then their teams aren't role-models. If we all play that way, no games would happen.
Those that can survive without burning out, take on challenging games vs everything bloodbowl can throw at em, and still win, have the winning skill selections.
only problem then becomes, are their 3 teams out there for each race that satisfy all that.
Overall Pac, you've done a great job. I look forward to reading more of it. |
_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2007 - 19:49 |
|
What about a button for "automatic skill selection", based on those stats, so we need not select the obvoius choice from a drop down list? |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2007 - 19:30 |
|
Necros are there, and Pro Elves have been up since yesterday, as requested by someone. |
|
|
Webbe
Joined: Aug 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2007 - 19:58 |
|
Checked out three of my favourite teams: Orc, Undead and DE.
The skillchoices are nearly identical to my personal opinion on all positions so I must say this way of determining a good list of skillchoices is good and a more accurate way than I thought. |
|
|
Oblitzamanger
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2007 - 20:31 |
|
I like it so far, but probably more than just three teams would do better. |
_________________
paulhicks wrote: I AM THE KING OF THE MONKEY PEOPLE AND I MUST SLAY THIS PRETENDER TO MY CROWN
That means you. |
|
|
|
| |
ramchop takes on the...
Search
