Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jan 27, 2009 - 16:45 |
 
|
God bless big brained maths boffins. And god bless the rest of us while he's at it..... |
_________________
 |
|
DonTomaso
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 27, 2009 - 16:51 |
|
Some nice big brains on your avatar there.. mmm.... |
_________________
====================================
Be careful, my common sense is tingling! |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 27, 2009 - 17:52 |
|
I've found that Some variations of the zero RR thing can be very good at winning. However, I think where they really win out is in being able to force a draw.. if things go wrong they might not be so effective at turning it into a win but they can be very good at not losing. |
_________________
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." |
|
Evil-Eve
Joined: Aug 21, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 27, 2009 - 19:45 |
|
Would it be an idea to count in the number of players, if there's fewer than 11 players? When your team is bashed up you're likely to meet a team with full strenght, but fewer skills. Normally this will end in even more casualties and an uneven game. Is this a bad idea? |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 27, 2009 - 19:58 |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 08:14 |
|
Maybe it's symptomatic how this thread doubled after questioning the removal of BBR from the formula (or maybe it was a coincidence).
I found these to be the two main arguments (removed the authors as this is not about persons, but about the matter at hand):
| Quote: | Look at it this way:
Before if a team just killed and not scored, BBR would skyrocket, but BR would plummet. As BR counts ALOT more than BBR, those teams still got the TS advantage on average. Now those teams are paired like all others. |
| Quote: | | Well, precisely. I believe his point is that teams with only 0 or 1 RR are significantly hampered when trying to win, and that this is naturally reflected in TS. |
I'm afraid that both of these arguments are off the mark (it would be great if they were true!).
Why?
This team just became the most successful team in Blackbox over 25 games.
It's a 0 re-roll Leader, All Dirty Player Chaos team. Because of the TS scheduler it always gets favorable match-ups, and always kicks the opponents lying down.
Now you can answer "if it works, do it yourself then". But is that how we want Blackbox to be?
Consequently I see two types of enlightened coaches developing (actually, I feel it's more or less like this already):
Maybe ranked by success rate?
1. The coach trimming his team for TS exploits spreading dread and grief.
2. The coach playing Blood Bowl "the holy way", but selling himself short with a comparatively bloated TS.
Obviously none of the two are favorable for a social yet competitive gaming environment.
So in my humble opinion (hope you are reading this Christer - we all love you) I think it's obvious that when the Box schedules matches, it has to consider the 0 re-roll / leader loophole, as well as include a team based bash rating discouraging solely destructive play.
Thanks for reading through  |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 11:11 |
|
Agree on the RR thing, totally disagree on bash rating. Stomp down on concessions and 'scary' teams won't get all the free money that's bankrolling them. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 16:06 |
|
I think concessions are the largest remaining problem in B. The site rules regarding concessions need to be enforced at some point, else it is too easy to dodge matches.
EDIT: Reclassify this to "personal pet peeve". It doesnt happen that often and therefore objectively not that big a deal. |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %04, %2009 - %16:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 16:11 |
|
Balle2000 - The people seem to be playing against that fouling team wrong. They are still fouling back, which you shouldn't do:
For Against Difference Average fouls per game
Fouls 914 743 171 2.73
This is his Blackbox foul stats.
I have had success in not fouling back against teams with a lot of dirty players. I know it could go horribly wrong, but at least there is a better chance they get caught then when fouling back. Even if you have Get the Ref, you wouldn't want to foul back against a team like that. |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 18:31 |
|
agreed. if you don't foul back they have a greater chance of ejection than they do of causing a cas every turn they foul. Plus they need to crowd players around their targets |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 18:33 |
|
Actually, as long as you have argue the call and have so many assists, that your AV will always succeed, chances for cas and ejection are the same. |
|
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 19:18 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Actually, as long as you have argue the call and have so many assists, that your AV will always succeed, chances for cas and ejection are the same. |
0%? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 19:25 |
|
|
maznaz
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 19:35 |
|
I can't understand how people can consider concessions (within the rules and penalised by it) to be worse than not showing up for the match at all, or even asking the admins to unschedule. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2009 - 19:35 |
|
That's the chance for KOs + CAS, not CAS. and you do need to have a lot of assists to guarantee AV is passed (6,7,8 including the fouler for AV7,8,9 respectively).
EDIT: that's without DP. Of course, CircularLogic's next post is completely right =) |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou
Last edited by Eddy on %b %28, %2009 - %21:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
