| Poll |
| SHould the TS rebate be removed? |
| Remove the TS rebate |
|
58% |
[ 109 ] |
| Keep things as they are |
|
23% |
[ 43 ] |
| Keep things as they are, but fix the Leader thing |
|
18% |
[ 34 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 186 |
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 11:05 |
 
|
They just need a game where the cas dice (and the ref) go against them and they'll be wrecked. No subs and not much cash with all the Borak hiring. Then again they clearly scare people: in their last 10 games their opponent has conceded 5 times. Worst offender: wood elves conceded after going 1-0 up on turn 4 and a single wood elf casualty (death). They then got scheduled vs each other in the next match and the wood elf coach conceded 1st turn with no injuries.
Grow some balls or get out of blackbox conceders!!!
That said right now the team does look really cool with those skill choices  |
|
|
Shrap
Joined: Sep 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 12:16 |
|
| xcver wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | Now it's official. The TS exploit just became the most successful tactic in the Box.
KhornedBeef's appropriately named Chaos abomination Playing My TS now sports the highest win rate in Blackbox (for teams over 25 games).
20/5/2 in 27 games. |
Dunno if that record really is because of the 0 RR or just a statistical thing after almost 60 retired blackbox teams |
At the very least one can read into the fact that 0 RRs isn't done just by people that don't wanna win. That they do it with the intention of playing weaker oppos and thusly having a better chance to win. |
|
|
xcver
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 12:27 |
|
| Shrap wrote: |
At the very least one can read into the fact that 0 RRs isn't done just by people that don't wanna win. That they do it with the intention of playing weaker oppos and thusly having a better chance to win. |
Correct and that's also the point. The TS rebate for the RR's is in place to reflect a lower chance of winning. Which is a bit moot without considering leader. In ranked this doesn't help as much, because games are usually chosen by a combination of factors like TR, TS, opponent, team etc. So the rebate usually will not work to your advantage there. In B however you will be scheduled severely less developed teams giving you (with an appropriately skilled team) a higher chance to win. |
_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 13:30 |
|
| clarkin wrote: | They just need a game where the cas dice (and the ref) go against them and they'll be wrecked. No subs and not much cash with all the Borak hiring. Then again they clearly scare people: in their last 10 games their opponent has conceded 5 times. Worst offender: wood elves conceded after going 1-0 up on turn 4 and a single wood elf casualty (death). They then got scheduled vs each other in the next match and the wood elf coach conceded 1st turn with no injuries.
Grow some balls or get out of blackbox conceders!!! |
Regardless of what your position on the RR-rebate-debate is:
It has been my impression that, for some mediocre coaches out there, it has become a cheap excuse to justify whining, moaning and conceding when a player gets injured/killed on a random block by a team without RRs, as if casualities wouldn't happen against teams with RRs as well. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 13:47 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | Now it's official. The TS exploit just became the most successful tactic in the Box.
KhornedBeef's appropriately named Chaos abomination Playing My TS now sports the highest win rate in Blackbox (for teams over 25 games).
20/5/2 in 27 games. |
Give my vampires time 
Also, how many of those games were played with either a low BR or under the new system? Its an impressive win rate though.
| xcver wrote: | | The TS rebate for the RR's is in place to reflect a lower chance of winning. Which is a bit moot without considering leader. In ranked this doesn't help as much, because games are usually chosen by a combination of factors like TR, TS, opponent, team etc. So the rebate usually will not work to your advantage there. In B however you will be scheduled severely less developed teams giving you (with an appropriately skilled team) a higher chance to win. |
Actually it was a great tactic in [R]anked. Potentially you would play confused noobs and maybe even experienced players who werent able to evaluate the strength of the team properly. At the very least you would have been gaming the CR formula. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 15:53 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | the 0-1 rebate should be removed, because it adds nothing to the game, and rewards a type of play that makes for a crappier playing experience.
Much like the NHL took steps to change Ice Hockey to make Trap style defence harder to play. The trap was a perfectly legal tactic, but it made for bad hockey, so it had to go. |
Respect to a fellow hockey fan.
I'm not sure the analogy applies, though. Neutral zone trap made for boring defensive hockey, but the 0RR rebate may make for more offense, turnovers, and a faster paced game.
Even if I grant your point, it wouldn't be the first time a boring but effective tactic has come under criticism (e.g. stalling, caging) yet they were eventually accepted as part of the game. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 15:57 |
|
| xcver wrote: | | 7 of those wins were concedes by the way (which happens a lot in B) of which some were even on turn 1...clearly showing that other players seemingly dissaprove playing against such a team. |
The doubt regarding the legality of 0RR rebate has vanished, so I hope we'll see less of these types of concessions. T1 concessions are clearly illegal.
| Frankenstein wrote: | | It has been my impression that, for some mediocre coaches out there, it has become a cheap excuse to justify whining, moaning and conceding when a player gets injured/killed on a random block by a team without RRs, as if casualities wouldn't happen against teams with RRs as well. |
Aye. There was one guy who was fine playing my 0RR dorfs when the dice were with him, but conceded T4 when he took a couple of CAS, citing "cheese" as justification. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
GeneralCael
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 17:01 |
|
| xcver wrote: | | 7 of those wins were concedes by the way (which happens a lot in B) of which some were even on turn 1...clearly showing that other players seemingly dissaprove playing against such a team. |
And by "such a team" you mean a team without rerolls?
I think perhaps the endless amount of DP and a close to 10 fouls per game may have something to do with the opponents conceding too... |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 19:47 |
|
Westerner: I think you're going to far in the hockey comparaison. I brought it up because it was an example of a perfectly legal tactic that was seen as having a negative effect, so they changed the rules to make it harder to do.
As for the comparaison to stalling and mass fouling, I don't think they hold true either. because they are perfectly legal parts of Blood Bowl. TS is not. It is a formula designed to expedite games. It has absolutely no standing as a part of Blood Bowl, and as such should be changed willy nilly as it's flaws are discovered and exposed.
I'm not saying that a coach shouldn't be allowed to play rerolless khemri (or whatever). Frankly, I don't think it's a terribly effective build, but whatever. But I am saying it should not be encouraged. Removing the TS rebate isn't going to make a huge difference, but the teams they face will be a little more developed and the match will be a little fairer, both in teams of scoring and damage potential.
0 rr teams are like some protected industry (agriculture in the US, for example), that only survives because of subsidies that make them compete on an uneven playing field.
Let me put it another way. I s there anyone who can give a sensible reason why the discount SHOULD be kept? What does it add to [B]? And don't give me that "It shows the competitiveness in the next game" crap, because as any vet can tell you, it doesn't even do that very well. Frankly, I think the only people interested in keeping it have an interest in [B] ultimately failling (much like the stunty revamp), but that's another thread. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 20:19 |
|
The rebate makes sense - it`s just the loophole with leader that leads to flaws. Even though I`d just give reroll a fix pricing starting at 10 TS, dropping to 8/6/5/4/3/2/1 for subsequent rerolls. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 20:30 |
|
@Snappy:
TS has standing on fumbbl and has been in use for years. IMO it should be tweaked for this issue as I have said previously, but TS is not something to be altered willy nilly.
The rebate exists because the first few rerolls are significantly more valuable than subsequent ones.
Your position is inconsistent. You say that 0RR isn't all that effective, but you also say that the rebate leads to unfair matches.
Ascribing negative ulterior motives to those who don't agree with your stance is uncalled for. Is Christer, too, anxious to see [B] fail? If I wanted to ascribe negative motives to you, I could argue that your stance is a product of ingrained biases as to what a BB team "should" look like. "Normal" teams have rerolls, therefore, 0RR teams are abnormal. That is, if I wanted to ascribe negative motives to you. I would rather not. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 29, 2009 - 01:55 |
|
What I said was 0 rr is effective BECAUSE of the rebate. Otherwise it wouldn't be. As there is no pressing reason to keep the rebate, other than to make a bunch of otherwise uncompetitive teams slight more so. It should go.
Ignore the negative stuff, I was in a poopy mood. I apologize. However, the stunty revamp is a perfect example of death by commitee, with predictable results. I would hate to see Blackbox suffer the same fate.
As for TS being altered. Sure, it's been used for years, but there has always been human oversight. The fact that it wasn't even close to accurate in many cases could be worked around, because games weren't auto matched up. Given the environment of Blackbox, we need to be much more receptive to tweaking the model, as problems crop up.
What [B] really needs is a commisioner, with oversight powers over such things . But the distribution of power is such that this seems unlikely.
Now given that I apologized for my nastiness, how about addressing my point? What is the logic that justifies the rebate? There is no rebate for not taking block, or DP, or no Big Guy. All of these things would negatively affect one's ability to win games. Why the preferential treatment for RR? |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 29, 2009 - 04:23 |
|
No worries, dude.
I don't know exactly what the logic was for the 0RR rebate when TS was designed, I wasn't around and the few old threads I've dug up don't address it. But I'll take my best guess.
I think some folks get peeved because 0RR is one of the only rebates in the TS formula and that feels like something for nothing. But from a mathematical perspective, there's nothing unholy about negative numbers. You could achieve a very similar effect by lowering all other costs and then increasing the cost of rerolls 1 and 2, but for whatever reason Christer chose to do it this way years ago. So it's not a question of "subsidy", instead, it's just a way of valuing the first two rerolls more than subsequent ones. Does that make sense?
I quite agree that B is pushing TS to new limits and it could use updating. I like the idea of a B commissioner (I would recommend 3 commissioners) to address these issues in consultation with Christer. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 13:19 |
|
This thread can be closed now. I'm very happy with the outcome. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 13:19 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
