JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 17:03 |
 
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Nope, what I'm saying is, that ,at a high TR/TS, you will encounter races that perform well at high TR/TS more often than other races, even more so if those races are popular anyway and it's difficult to find casual games with them in [R]. That is not a flaw - that is to be expected. |
No.
Elves perform excellently at higher TR/TS... it's just that people are in love with their pixels and hate to see them die and have to rebuild them.
The popularity of Av9 regen teams is a matter of pixel hugging and unwillingness to see the team as a continuous flow of talents. Not a matter of effectiveness.
Elves overperform Chaos at any day past TR 200, and they just outperform Khemri from TR 100 to infinite. |
_________________
 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 17:06 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | Nope, what I'm saying is, that ,at a high TR/TS, you will encounter races that perform well at high TR/TS more often than other races, even more so if those races are popular anyway and it's difficult to find casual games with them in [R]. That is not a flaw - that is to be expected. |
No.
Elves perform excellently at higher TR/TS... it's just that people are in love with their pixels and hate to see them die and have to rebuild them.
The popularity of Av9 regen teams is a matter of pixel hugging and unwillingness to see the team as a continuous flow of talents. Not a matter of effectiveness.
Elves overperform Chaos at any day past TR 200, and they just outperform Khemri from TR 100 to infinite. |
Only true for individual games.
Performance includes the ability to maintain a high TR/TS as well, of course. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 17:11 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Performance includes the ability to maintain a high TR/TS as well, of course. |
There are alot of people who apparently disagree, when you look at the 'low AV should have a higher win% in an even TS game' threads. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 17:21 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | Performance includes the ability to maintain a high TR/TS as well, of course. |
There are alot of people who apparently disagree, when you look at the 'low AV should have a higher win% in an even TS game' threads. |
What has that to do with the ability to maintain a high TR/TS?  |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 18:28 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | shadow46x2 wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | Fact 4:
As it is difficult to play the aforementioned 4 races (and khemri) in [R], it appears only naturally that people give them a try in a division (i.e. blackbox), where games for these teams are assured. Additionally, there is no need to sport less Claw/RSC/DP/MB than usual in order to get these games (a concession you often encounter in [R]). |
so basically, because people build team-killers in ranked that don't get matches, and decide "oh well people are forced to play me in blackbox", it's perfectly ok?....
that's pretty antisocial behavior don't you think?(and apparently, from the way people like to describe me, i'm apparently an expert on antisocial behavior) |
No, not basically.
What you're saying is basically not related to what I have written. |
how is it any different?...
"As it is difficult to play the aforementioned 4 races (and khemri) in [R], it appears only naturally that people give them a try in a division (i.e. blackbox), where games for these teams are assured."
"so basically, because people build team-killers in ranked that don't get matches, and decide "oh well people are forced to play me in blackbox", it's perfectly ok?...."
they seem to be fairly similar statements in my eyes...
your entire contribution to this thread is making justifications to encourage more boring playstyle one-dimensional matchups in what has the potential to be a very great division.....so, yes, you are basically saying that it's perfectly ok for coaches to come into the league with teams that would have no way, shape, or form, of getting a match in ranked, simply because people are required to play the matchups....or at a minimum, you are trying to justify the action...
| Frankenstein wrote: |
Erm, you are aware that 3 out of those 9 games have been played against the same dwarf team within about 4 hours at night?
Of course, that's probably just opinion rather than fact again, I guess...  |
and that has relevance how?....it doesn't matter what the opposing team is...the fact still remains, 7 dorf teams in 9 matches, especially when the potential for other matchups exists, is ridiculous....
but since you're so hung up on that fact, how about a different perspective?
4 dorfs, 5 khemri, 7 orcs in 28 games....more than 50% of the team's opposition is collected in 3 races....how is that "diversity" in any way?
because that is very very fun for me, and interesting....
it has gotten to the point that i even see the word "dwarf" "khemri" or "orc" next to my team, i have already written off the next hour of my life as time i will never get back, because it is *boring*
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 18:37 |
|
Shadow, I wonder:
Out of over 40 games, why haven't I played any games against dwarfs or chaos dwarfs so far and just once against orcs (fun team even)?
Do we have to force people to play bashy races now?  |
|
|
Fallen00
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 18:42 |
|
its just that these poeple whining about [b] played early in the alpha, when everyone made bashy teams except for forrest the masochist.
I looked at synn's game and it was when there wasnt all that many poeple playing and he played 3 times the same dwarf team.. whatever. You can't make any conclusion from that. |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 19:05 |
|
good try fallen....
my last 4 matches with delfs were khemri on the 6th, khemri on the 9th, orcs on the 11th, and orcs on the 14th...
....of january......
and actually, there were more varied races in the first week then there are now....
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
Last edited by shadow46x2 on %b %19, %2009 - %02:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 19:14 |
|
[quote="shadow46x2"][quote="Frankenstein"]| shadow46x2 wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | Fact 4:
|
your entire contribution to this thread is making justifications to encourage more boring playstyle one-dimensional matchups in what has the potential to be a very great division.....so, yes, you are basically saying that it's perfectly ok for coaches to come into the league with teams that would have no way, shape, or form, of getting a match in ranked, simply because people are required to play the matchups....or at a minimum, you are trying to justify the action...
--j |
Building such teams seems to be completely justified.
From what I gather reading early posts by the site owner, the premise behind the box was that this is the most highly competitive sector of the site. It is not for team building, it is no holds barred. The idea is that you cannot dodge games because you do not like the make up of your opponent. By putting any restrictions on which teams you can have in the box, you are trying to tilt the mechanics to your preferences.
JanMatty pretty well summed it up best in his earlier post. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2009 - 22:13 |
|
@Frankenstein:
It seems that you are a statistical exception. Nearly all post blogs with the "I hit 100 games and here is the racial spread I played against" showed the big five of [B] - Orcs, Dwarves, Khemri, Chaos and Ogres - in at least 4 of the top5 positions. In my case orcs, undead and chaos make up 50% of my opponents.
@Kondor:
Thing is that people are partly sacrificing win% for bashing power - which would give you fewer games in [R]. That is what is meant by griefing which was brought up earlier. And it has nothing to do with a highly competitive division. |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2009 - 01:28 |
|
I can't help but be reminded that the Frankenstein of Shelly's novel is very different from the classic film version of Frankenstein.
I think the novel version is much more relevant and interesting. |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism
Last edited by EvolveToAnarchism on %b %19, %2009 - %06:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Alacran
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2009 - 06:00 |
|
I find it funny that several months ago, the people that chastised me for complaining about 'team killer' teams are finally seeing the problem with them. The problem, of course, that the pool of players and the variation on races is dwendling. I am partially to blame for this.
Additionally, people are finally understanding that because the BBox facilitates games for players that are lacking in social skills, you are finding more players that are patently anti-social. I have encountered everything from the icey silence to the meth-addled sociopath. My last game in B is likely my last.
Because I didn't want to be a one team coach, I started my second favorite race, Orcs. So, as my Woodelf was crushed, restarted and crushed again, my Orcs prospered and were even trimmed down a couple times to streamline them. Now, it is rare to get a game with a starting level team, at least as my experience. So if I activate, I have to play my Orc team over and over.
Much like Frankenstien has shown, people that enjoy playing teams that have a hard time getting games in ranked tend to find a home in Blackbox where they can Claw/RSC till their heart is content. I don't like to Necro and Khem. I also don't like tossing dirty player on guys simply because their cost is 50k or less.
Because this is another one of my flamebait posts that make me 'oh so popular' around here, I do want to add an idea. I think Blackbox should use the rule that my real life BloodBowl league used; You can augment the injury roll, but any injury augmented beyond badly hurt is treated as badly hurt. So, for the people here that clearly don't communicate in English, the rule is that you only kill on a natural 12 injury roll, and seriously injure only on an 11. What this does is makes the whole "I have 4 skellies with Dirty Player" a valid tactic still, but it doesn't permanantly injure a team's ability to get its next game. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2009 - 06:19 |
|
| Quote: | | You can augment the injury roll, but any injury augmented beyond badly hurt is treated as badly hurt. So, for the people here that clearly don't communicate in English, the rule is that you only kill on a natural 12 injury roll, and seriously injure only on an 11. What this does is makes the whole "I have 4 skellies with Dirty Player" a valid tactic still, but it doesn't permanantly injure a team's ability to get its next game. |
I think you might benefit from re-reading this rule, its not worked like that since at least 2002 
Its also worth pointing out that we cant change the rules and nor should we. On a practical level the client is not going to be recoded but even if it could be recoded I doubt you'd ever get any sort of consensus on what sort of changes need to be made. |
_________________
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." |
|
Alacran
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2009 - 06:38 |
|
Either you lack reading comprehension and you missed the part where I proposed the rule as opposed to stateing its existance, or my client improperly figures injury rolls. In my last game, a 5,5 with a +1,5 was a MNG serious injury.
Ok. You are right, hard to change the coding on the client. Perhaps the alternative is to make it so that Serious injuries don't require missing a game in blackbox.
Anyway, just throwing something out there. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2009 - 07:07 |
|
| Quote: | | Either you lack reading comprehension and you missed the part where I proposed the rule as opposed to stateing its existance, or my client improperly figures injury rolls. In my last game, a 5,5 with a +1,5 was a MNG serious injury. |
Check your facts before my reading comprehension. This is one of those coincidences that makes a wrong rules interpretation look right.
The rules for the game state that a 10+ on an injury roll counts as a caualty, you then roll another dice and on a 1-3 its a badly hurt, 4-5 its a serious injury, and on a 6 its a kill. The rule you're alluding to is the one written on the quick reference cards that come in the boxed game which states that an injury roll of a 10 is a badly hurt, an 11 is a serious injury, and a 12 is a kill. I'm not entirely sure why the reference cards still have that rule on them, I guess its just something that either slipped through the net when GW re-released BB in 2002. So, a breakdown of what the client is telling you is that:
- you rolled a 10 for injury which was modified to 11
- this is a number greater than or equal to 10, the fact that its an 11 does not matter
- the client then rolled a 5 which indicates a serious injury
- the client then determines the type of serious injury from a serious injury table (not shown)
Changing the rule so that a 10 could never be modified to an 11 would not make an ounce of difference, hence why I suggested you re-read the rule. |
_________________
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." |
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
