licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:17 |
 
|
Depends on what multiplying the maths by 8/9 does 
Also my formation still doesn't seem right, the 2 back lines are in contact? Or is there a gap there too?
That actually matters if it's a skink. *edit* It matters regardless... the 4+,4+,3+,3+ is easier than the 3+,4+,3+,3+,3+.
So sure, nail down the basic one, but that's likely the one you actually face the least |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:30 |
|
| licker wrote: | That chart is different from the OP chart. In which case I agree. OP chart 'appeared' to have the back row more than 2 rows behind the middle row.
Apologies if I sounded a bit dickish, but I was heading home for lunch and was just baffled because it really seemed we were not looking at the same diagram, or at least not reading it the same way.
Row 12 - Three players set to far left.
Row 11 - Open
Row 10 - 4 players one off the side, double gapped.
Row 09 - Open
Row 08 - 4 players one off the side, double gapped.
Is that correct? |
Almost. Actually I was debating between two similar options. One with row 9 filled equal to row 10. The other with row 9 and 8 open, and row 10 and 7 filled. The one you are suggesting here would be a third quite similar option. Might be better...will do the math later. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:39 |
|
Assuming AG4 then the 10/7 option should be the best and the 10/9 the worst.
Assuming AG5 then it flips? And 10/9 is the best option.
Assuming stunty or AG6 then 10/7 is the best.
I didn't factor in rerolls though it shouldn't change the order, just the chances for success.
AG4
10 and 9 0.112225
10 and 8 0.100755605
10 and 7 0.090458382
AG5
10 and 9 0.311736111
10 and 8 0.323109568
10 and 7 0.334897977
These are just the dodges, does not include gfis or blocks. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:46 |
|
It was worth a couple of pages of dancing around it so that we all understood what the outcome was and got to the same place independently. Good to see agreement!
Those numbers likely don't agree with those earlier in the thread, because picking up, handing off and catching (and RRs) were factored in, but from a relative standpoint, fine. |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:52 |
|
Agreed. But with 4 tackle players on line 10 it is actually better to use line 10 and 9. Unless I cocked up the maths on that one. Seems a bit counterintuitive...
I am ready to move on to the 10 player setup now  |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:56 |
|
Not sure it should matter if the tackle is on the front or back the sequence of rolls required only changes the order, not the absolute requirements.
And yes, I kept out all the other rolls as they do not impact the dodges at all and otherwise require more assumptions than are useful as the defense has no control over them anyway (insert what about disturbing presence and pass block question here). |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 22:57 |
|
1:4 (or in the above nomenclature row 11 and 8, I think? I edited quickly so that there were not lots of different systems ruining the accord we've finally reached) is interesting. Largely because I've not thought about it for long enough. Tripleskull was evangelical about it, but we never hashed it out numerically.
I'll draw a line there for me. I'd absolutely love to see a 10 man variant, but I'll let you drive that one. Please do, I'd be fascinated! Between games at a tournament this weekend, I know what I'll be doing! If it takes off, I'll report back..
Edit: We're all ninja editing to keep it consistent and not confusing. Hang it all, I'm sitting on my hands now. |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 23:06 |
|
Counterintutive indeed. Nevermind the tackle, I cocked that up. Using rows 10 and 7 is better regardless.
Edit: And 11 and 8 is interesting, but really opens up a ton of issues with regards to the pushes. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
One niggle I will throw in - this is one beautiful BB example where we're not talking in terms of something 'probably being a wash' - whilst general turns can be debated to death, there is a wrong and a right answer here, because it's just maths. Pushing a guy around the corner is just plain worse (iirc). And it's nice to actually have an on field situation where we can be binary. |
I followed this thread with interest the first time, and have re-read it again after the necro. Like all exercises in theorybowl, i find it interesting, but am becoming increasingly agitated by the claims of 'fact' associated with this.
As an exercise in finding the theoretical best defence, assuming 11 players, taking no regard (except occasionally tackle crops up) of skills or kick off results, we surely can find a mathematically right answer. Cool.
But this 'right answer' is only right in theory, and only in so far as the parameters the conversation has decided to accept.
By the time you face a one turn attempt, how often will you have 11 defenders?
How does it affect the chances if they are short handed?
Which skills change the answer?
What about kick off results?
| Quote: | As for factoring in skills and kickoff results in general, of course you could go down that road, but it grows the scope exponentially. A solid base is the important thing to get right first, and then it's much, much easier to make adjustments on the fly in-game.
I've spent no time on bghandras's idea (and, I'm sorry, I'm unlikely to myself in the near future), but there is a formation QS probably really hampers. QS is going to hamper anything, but if a formation were shown to have better maths without QS but worse with it, you'd likely take the risk and use it anyway. |
So we are not going to factor in Kick off results, but are going to cite them to dismiss other peoples ideas.
And much greater than that minor quibble is the stated fact that without those factors the base derived from the maths with limited parameters is solid. And it is proposed as the normal to vary from.
With what evidence? Removing a single player and the straume/pg championed defence is meaningless. Add some DT and it changes massively. having playtested it myself, i found that a single SS on the one turner means the open side is easy to achieve, and when exactly will I face a one turning team without SS?
I'm with NerdBird. I see 15 pages solving a chess problem, with very little real application to BB. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 00:16 |
|
I don't disagree PC, but there is some merit in solving the 'base' problem.
As to pushing with SS...
It's only one extra push to get on top of the corner, but this only works for range 11 players. Not sure you can actually do it for range 10 because that's pushing 4 spaces, and laterally instead of vertically. This also requires the one turning team to have an excess of players (and or frenzy), something they are also unlikely to have...
If that corner player has diving tackle you are markedly worse off trying to get around him (with AG4 at least) than going another way.
In the end, I think the optimal formation with less than 11 players is going to wind up simply being the backed off double gap defense because there really isn't a way to manufacture multiple TZ dodges short of also assuming you have diving tackle (or other) players to use in the formation. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Yeah, that came over as overly harsh, there clearly is value in finding the base.
But I almost always find stringing them out at the back is forced by lack of numbers.
I think options like QS HAVE to be factored in. And SS, Frenzy maybe too.
Because I dont want to end up with an accepted 'base formation' that is only better in theory, but almost never in practice.
Wrinkles like licker stating the free side corner player having DT really ups the value of the defence is massively important, it is actual practical advice. i would suggest it is also true for a tackler, especially if you only have one. So why has no one said ;this formation is especially good if you have one tackler, as they will either try to pass him, or go through the other wing and a double line defence.' Because even with QS that is probably true.
While it remains so theoretical and limited in assumed factors, i worry it overstates its effectiveness and possibly missleads entirely. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 00:28 |
|
The interesting thing to me is that if you add diving tackle on defense you can set up this defense with fewer players and still 'force' either multiple TZs or trying to go through DT.
It's actually also true that if you have one side step you can keep them from moving to the open side pretty effectively by forcing them to block the middle player. This should also allow the defense to work with fewer than 11 as the pushes to the open side increase in number.
It seems less than 9 though and you really have no choice but to double gap a back line regardless of skills. Well clearly regardless of not having 3 sidestep/stand firm to neutralize the los. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:55 |
|
I understand the point you're making, PC. But actually, I find myself in this situation, give or take, relatively often, or certainly more frequently than you seem to be. Because of that, getting the correct base numerically, which absolutely can be done, is something I've found interesting / important over time. As you can see from the quote you pulled, I wasn't dismissing anyone's idea due to kickoff results; moreover pointing out that if it's better without factoring them in, all the better!
This is an area of BB that I think, in general, people are weak in. Discussing concepts like this on the Internet is tough, but it's many times more interesting to me than the 900th skill thread of the month. There are a lot of BB concepts underrepresented on line because they're a bit tricky. It's fine not to be interested, but I think off base to dismiss the original problem as so infrequent it's not worth worrying about. Yes: sometimes in reality a problem is more difficult than on the page. Doesn't mean you can't nail it in it's simplest form first and be armed with that knowledge.
I'm mock wounded by the use of 'theory bowl'. That tends to be code for 'I'm now going to talk utter rot for 5 pages'. I don't think the term was coined when I started the thread, I'd rather blame the bumper if we're going down that road. |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %18, %2016 - %09:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 09:03 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | with very little real application to BB. |
I see your point, but I disagree on this conclusion.
I suppose it depends on what you play. In a typical NAF-1100TV-tournament this will come in to play quite often. I actually played Welsh Open a few week backs (and won it) and faced 3 Wood Elf-teams and one Skaven team over the weekend, needing to set up against OTS 4 times. And every time with 11 players. So yes: This do come up, and is important to master/consider. And in these tournaments you are not likely to see AG5, MA10. Even side step and grab would be quite uncommon (and if you do face side step-catcher try and kill it on your own drive )
But of course: There is nothing wrong with trying and broaden the scope of the discussion with skills and less players.
Also: Personally I think it is pretty tricky to get around to the open right *even* with either a side step player, a quick snap, a grab player or a frenzy player. But again: I am not really good at this chainpushing game, so I am happy to be taught wrong there.
Note on the row 11 and 8 defence: I recall doing this once and some pesky Skaven got to push forward a player to actually block my row11 player. |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 09:05 |
|
Hmm...more or less ninja`d by Purplegoo |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
