FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Gromrilram

Joined: Aug 28, 2006

Posted: Nov 10, 2008 - 18:06

Gromrilram hugs shadow

_________________
Every problem can be solved by a Desert Eagle .50

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Nov 10, 2008 - 18:13

... i gotta do such a post myself... especially the "i wouldnt tell this if i wouldnt be convinced its a good idea" part really rocked quizard

Hogshine

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Nov 10, 2008 - 19:17

<3 shadow. Please never change.

Quizard

Joined: May 31, 2008

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 11:06

First of all i want to say that its a pitty that some people leave such a negative impression and such a strong one at the same time that it is becoming hard to have a civilized conversation with the reasonable folks.

To summarize, my suggestion was to play the freebooting rule as it is meant to be played according to LRB4 in blackbox. That would become possible because games that have been assigned must be played so that a pre- game conversation about hirelings as it is done in the boardgame would be possible. It could be abused by lying about hirelings in that pregame conversation, so thats an administrative problem and i don't know if it is possible to establish a procedure to prevent and or penalize that.

Then major point of those who oppose plaing the rule in concurrence with LRB and furthe establish a freebooting house rule on FUMBBL is that it does not work perfectly together with another one of fumbbl's house rules, namely team strength.

I acknowledge that this point will be valid under certain circumstances. (Two teams of equal TS or TS in favour of the freebooting side meet. The freebooting side to "waste" money even though the matchup is already balanced or in their favour, the other one has not enough money to counter freeboot).

While i acknowledge the teoretical scenario, i claim that this will not be an issue, since money will be much more precious for all teams in this division. My argumentation is that the benefits (tactical choice, means to influence the matchup, not having to choose an hireling without knowing which one is really needed) outweigth the one posible problem, namely that there will occasionally be an heavily unbalanced matchup.

To add to this last sentence, i am sure that a team that will generate such an imbalanced matchup will pay a heavy price for that in the long run since once again i think they will desperately lack that money much soone than they ecpect because they have no influence what so ever regarding their next opponent.

In this league, it will be a good idea to always have some cash in your treasury imho.

The TS that is added by freebooters could be calculated into some kind of formula that allows to indicate how valuable money is to a certain race in terms of TS, but thats just a blurry idea right now.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 11:51

This just doesn't make sense.
DivB does not mean that every team will have troubles with management.
You seem to imply that in R everyone can cherrypick and avoid danger and get recoveries, while in B blood will be much more of a problem.
This is simply false. Many teams do NOT cherrypick in ranked, and the team management issues in B will be pretty much the same that every nonpicking team in R has ever had.

So, this leads to another fact (not an opinion, but a fact):
Some races will always be able to stash more cash than others. Teams with AV9, teams who can recruit zombies, and teams who regenerate will always have more cash than woodies in a DivB environment. Through careful team management, Orcs could be able to pull out a wizard off their hat when needed against khemri, turning an interesting matchup into a tactical nightmare for said khemri.

Also, remember that in DivB (assuming people play to win) bashy teams will be much less bashy, because they will be forced to choose skills to counter different races. Orcs will get more tackles and Chaos will get more tentacles to counter elves, and we will see less no-brainer claws and less no brainer mbs around. This means that basher-vs-basher matchups will be less bloody than the average juggernauts clashes in R.
I can easily see an Orc team in DivB to be able to stash some gold and then have the upper hand in any matchup based on TS.

I've used far too many words, so I'll stick it to the basics:
As long as some teams have a longer survival rate, and better chances to save gold, it's pretty lame to give them the chance to unbalance fair matchups. Skaven will rarely (if ever) be able to hire Headsplitter in DivB, while I can easily see orcs fielding a wizard or Ripper. And don't even get me started about Khemri and Ramtut.

Just no, thanks.

_________________

Cloggy

Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 11:57

JanMattys wrote:

Also, remember that in DivB (assuming people play to win) bashy teams will be much less bashy, because they will be forced to choose skills to counter different races. Orcs will get more tackles and Chaos will get more tentacles to counter elves, and we will see less no-brainer claws and less no brainer mbs around. This means that basher-vs-basher matchups will be less bloody than the average juggernauts clashes in R.
I can easily see an Orc team in DivB to be able to stash some gold and then have the upper hand in any matchup based on TS.

That remains the big question abaout this division. Many coaches think it WILL be come a "4 dp's is a must" environment, exactly because this mix of opponents you mention will not happen. Let's not forget that many coaches in Ranked tone down their bashyness in order to get games outside of the tournies.

I'm still undecided about whether you are right or they are, but time will tell.

_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life.

shadow46x2

Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 11:59

bigmac...we get your "point".....

it's not going to happen....it is completely against some of the intentions of the division...

get over it...just because people disagree with your point does not make them uncivilized or unreasonable...

it's...not...going...to...happen....

just like all of your other ideas that didn't happen...

--j

_________________

origami wrote:

There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet.

Mattybee

Joined: Mar 22, 2007

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 12:15

JanMattys wrote:

This just doesn't make sense.
DivB does not mean that every team will have troubles with management.
You seem to imply that in R everyone can cherrypick and avoid danger and get recoveries, while in B blood will be much more of a problem.
This is simply false. Many teams do NOT cherrypick in ranked, and the team management issues in B will be pretty much the same that every nonpicking team in R has ever had.

Just because people CAN cherrypick doesn't mean they WILL cherrypick. I don't think anyone is saying that everyone cherrypicks to start their teams in -R-, but it is still an option on the table in -R-. It's just not an option in -B-.

Quizard wrote:

To summarize, my suggestion was to play the freebooting rule as it is meant to be played according to LRB4 in blackbox. That would become possible because games that have been assigned must be played so that a pre- game conversation about hirelings as it is done in the boardgame would be possible. It could be abused by lying about hirelings in that pregame conversation, so thats an administrative problem and i don't know if it is possible to establish a procedure to prevent and or penalize that.

The freebooting/stars rule as it stands in LRB4 is inherently incompatible with the concept of blackbox, unless blackbox accounts for the possibility that someone might do something with the gold they have saved (which is silly).

Quizard wrote:

While i acknowledge the teoretical scenario, i claim that this will not be an issue, since money will be much more precious for all teams in this division.

Some teams earn money more easily than others. Advantage given to bashier teams, teams that have cheap players, etc.

Again: Freebooting/stars after you find out who you're playing are inherently incompatible with blackbox. No matter what you post, you are not going to convince me - or anyone else - of this.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 12:57

Quizard wrote:

First of all i want to say that its a pitty that some people leave such a negative impression and such a strong one at the same time that it is becoming hard to have a civilized conversation with the reasonable folks.

It`s always a good start to denounce people disagreeing with you.

Quizard wrote:

To summarize, my suggestion was to play the freebooting rule as it is meant to be played according to LRB4 in blackbox. That would become possible because games that have been assigned must be played so that a pre- game conversation about hirelings as it is done in the boardgame would be possible. It could be abused by lying about hirelings in that pregame conversation, so thats an administrative problem and i don't know if it is possible to establish a procedure to prevent and or penalize that.

Then major point of those who oppose plaing the rule in concurrence with LRB and furthe establish a freebooting house rule on FUMBBL is that it does not work perfectly together with another one of fumbbl's house rules, namely team strength.

I acknowledge that this point will be valid under certain circumstances. (Two teams of equal TS or TS in favour of the freebooting side meet. The freebooting side to "waste" money even though the matchup is already balanced or in their favour, the other one has not enough money to counter freeboot).

While i acknowledge the teoretical scenario, i claim that this will not be an issue, since money will be much more precious for all teams in this division. My argumentation is that the benefits (tactical choice, means to influence the matchup, not having to choose an hireling without knowing which one is really needed) outweigth the one posible problem, namely that there will occasionally be an heavily unbalanced matchup.

To add to this last sentence, i am sure that a team that will generate such an imbalanced matchup will pay a heavy price for that in the long run since once again i think they will desperately lack that money much soone than they ecpect because they have no influence what so ever regarding their next opponent.

LRB4 was never meant for open play. It was meant for either one-off games or closed scheduled leagues, where teams have the same number of games. In this environment, I agree, a coach has to find a tradeoff between short-term chances and longterm development.
In [B] on the other hand, teams are not matched in a fixed schedule, but matched to play an even one-off game. So if you blow your money on stars for an easy win and your long-term-development suffers, your chances for the next games are NOT reduced, because you will be matched with equally weak teams.

Next point is a simply technical one. The site doesn`t distinguish between buying a player/RR and hiring a freebooter/star. This means that EVERYONE who is planning to buy a new player would do that after he has been matched with a weaker opponent.

You frequently talk about 'gentlemen conduct' telling your opponent about your hiring.. so apparently you don`t want to adhere to the LRB that strictly... last time I checked stars/freebooter/wiz were hired simultaneously without telling.

As a last thing:
It would be great, if you don`t dismiss arguements as 'theoretical situations' implying they will happen so rarely, they won`t matter. They WILL matter. Undeads can - even against bashy opposition - afford the count at least every third - possibly even every other match. That would be a game winner right there. Trust me there.. it is easy to keep undead around TR150 for quite some time.. usually by wasting cash and staying at 2 wights, 2 mummies, 2 ghouls plus zombies and 4RR. That`s already being done in [R] with SMACK teams. Teams that play heavy opposition they can`t pick. So how shouldn`t they be able to afford mass counts?

Quizard wrote:

The TS that is added by freebooters could be calculated into some kind of formula that allows to indicate how valuable money is to a certain race in terms of TS, but thats just a blurry idea right now.

So you get punished for saving money for RR/positional, because you could potentially hire something? Hope that stays blurry.

nin

Joined: May 27, 2005

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 13:49

Quizard wrote:

While i acknowledge the teoretical scenario, i claim that this will not be an issue, since money will be much more precious for all teams in this division. My argumentation is that the benefits (tactical choice, means to influence the matchup, not having to choose an hireling without knowing which one is really needed) outweigth the one posible problem, namely that there will occasionally be an heavily unbalanced matchup.

Posting in this thread is begining to feel a bit like spamtrolling.... but this made me smile.

Quizard, claiming something doesn't make it real. An Undead team with just Zombies and Mummies suffers only half the casualties and can afford for a lot of Counts while keeping it's TS not too high.

...and means to influence matchups is against the whole idea of Blackbox (may be you don't like the idea of the Box, but that's another question)

On the "ocasionally be an heavily unbalanced matchup" thing, I've been told that there is ocasional cherripicking in Ranked and that some people ocasionally powergame in tournaments, and birthday, and...

Quizard

Joined: May 31, 2008

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 16:26

Well what i take from the last few posts is that there is concern that very durable races will have so much cash availiable that they can unbalance matchups determined by the box on a regular basis.

You expect, for example, Undead to show up with Count Luthor and Khemri with Ramtut almost every second game.

I think the box can destroy teams much more quickly than gamefinder could. I am absolutely disagreeing with Jan, in my Oppinion everybody cherrypicks. At the latest when a team is in very bad shape people start to look for "soft games" which means avoiding damage generating skills.

So what i expect from Blackbox is that even the most Fearsome Orc teams can end up in the trash bin after 2 unfortunate Matchups and some bad dice. Coming from that i do not expect rules of thumb that apply to ranked to hold equal truth in Blackbox.

My concern is coming from an entirely diffrent pespective. As a dark elf hiring Horkon gives you a good nice clean shot on an opposing dirty player. I imagine the blackbox dealing me an human team who use a mix of grinding and scoring when the opposition is outnumbered. So lets say i face 3 dirty players in that matchup and find my self with 60k availiable. I would spend those 60k on Horkon, but i would not if i was playing Dwarves. I would rather take a Wizzard then.

With regard to a matchup that is balanced with regard to TS, you always have to consider that the TS that matters is the TS that is set up on the field, while reserves have an impact on the game only at a later time.

So we witnessed a lot of Chaos teams who seem to be inferior in TS, but are able to deal a hell of a lot of damage in the first few turns. So if you do a recount of TS at halftime, you realize that there is not much TS left for the opposition and the same 11 players who accounted for the Chaos teams originaly lower TS are still around and dominate what's left of the opposition. This is particulary an issue with niggling injuries, which are a nice thing to have for every chaos team because they lower TS but dramatically increase the real availiable power as soon as a niggled player shows unexpectedly or by using the apothecary who has little else to do on a killer team.

In my oppinion no star player can unbalance a matchup unless only one person gets to hire and the other is forced to sit on their cash.

My feeling is that this discussion is biased by the general anti stars sentiment in this community. I would like to have this issue (freebooting in mutual agreement pre game) reviewed at a later point of time, when the division is established and there is data on the amount of money availiable to diffrent races.

I hope everyone can agree on that?

TheCetusProject

Joined: May 25, 2004

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 21:00

It would be nice if we could find some way to make star hiring better in blackbox, but I doubt there is a good way to do it.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 21:26

Quizard wrote:

Well what i take from the last few posts is that there is concern that very durable races will have so much cash availiable that they can unbalance matchups determined by the box on a regular basis.

You expect, for example, Undead to show up with Count Luthor and Khemri with Ramtut almost every second game.

I think the box can destroy teams much more quickly than gamefinder could. I am absolutely disagreeing with Jan, in my Oppinion everybody cherrypicks. At the latest when a team is in very bad shape people start to look for "soft games" which means avoiding damage generating skills.

So what i expect from Blackbox is that even the most Fearsome Orc teams can end up in the trash bin after 2 unfortunate Matchups and some bad dice. Coming from that i do not expect rules of thumb that apply to ranked to hold equal truth in Blackbox.

My concern is coming from an entirely diffrent pespective. As a dark elf hiring Horkon gives you a good nice clean shot on an opposing dirty player. I imagine the blackbox dealing me an human team who use a mix of grinding and scoring when the opposition is outnumbered. So lets say i face 3 dirty players in that matchup and find my self with 60k availiable. I would spend those 60k on Horkon, but i would not if i was playing Dwarves. I would rather take a Wizzard then.

With regard to a matchup that is balanced with regard to TS, you always have to consider that the TS that matters is the TS that is set up on the field, while reserves have an impact on the game only at a later time.

So we witnessed a lot of Chaos teams who seem to be inferior in TS, but are able to deal a hell of a lot of damage in the first few turns. So if you do a recount of TS at halftime, you realize that there is not much TS left for the opposition and the same 11 players who accounted for the Chaos teams originaly lower TS are still around and dominate what's left of the opposition. This is particulary an issue with niggling injuries, which are a nice thing to have for every chaos team because they lower TS but dramatically increase the real availiable power as soon as a niggled player shows unexpectedly or by using the apothecary who has little else to do on a killer team.

In my oppinion no star player can unbalance a matchup unless only one person gets to hire and the other is forced to sit on their cash.

My feeling is that this discussion is biased by the general anti stars sentiment in this community. I would like to have this issue (freebooting in mutual agreement pre game) reviewed at a later point of time, when the division is established and there is data on the amount of money availiable to diffrent races.

I hope everyone can agree on that?

No.
Sorry.

1- The problem is not that Blackbox will have less (or more) blood than R... The problem is that different teams and races will have access to more cash more regularly and will be able to turn the tide in their favour more often. I don't think undead will have the Count every other game... but SURE as hell Undead will be able to recruit the Count (90k) more often than woodies will be able to recruit a wizard (50k). I can bet on that. So, your premise is mighty wrong and you didn't read the responses you got properly. AGAIN.

2- Besides, "Everyone cherrypicks" is as wrong a sentence as they come. Look at the last 30 gamesof my humans. Seriously, do it. Then call me a picker. Or even a player who looks for softer games every now and then. And mind you, I am not even close to some of the coaches around here in terms of "non-picking-ness". The "everybody picks" is a R legend. The cool guys don't do it, and there are more cool guys in R than you can count.

3- This "we should re-calculate the TS after a few turns" argument is nonsense. Bloodbowl is an everchanging game, you cannot calculate fair matchups on a "if" basis... With the same reasoning, I could tell you that in a woodie vs mutated chaos game if casualties *don't* flow in then the chaos has almost NO chance to win. So... what's the point in discussing such a thing?

4- "In my oppinion no star player can unbalance a matchup unless only one person gets to hire and the other is forced to sit on their cash."... now this doesn't make sense. We are exactly discussing that teams will NOT have equal cash access, so if you pair by TS, you will have more often than not unbalanced matchups. FAR more often than not.

_________________

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 21:50

Why are you guys even bothering? We all know this won't lead to anything... (other then me going LOL, and we've had quite enough of that haven't we?)

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

Astarael

Joined: Aug 14, 2005

Posted: Nov 11, 2008 - 21:53

I like big butts and I cannot lie...

_________________
Oh my.