pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:20 |
 
|
I'm working on adding a new resource to help coaches with their skill selections, as I believe there is a gap that needs filling here.
Pages which list percentage breakdowns of skill picks are okay - but they include picks by coaches who didn't know what they were doing. Also, they don't tell you much about the conditions under which those picks were made, or what order to take skills in, or what combos work well, or what to do with a player with a stat up.
Asking for advice in forums or chat is also okay - but sometimes you want the advice of someone who is proven to be both experienced and successful with that race: and those coaches aren't always available for comment!
So, what I'm working on is a survey of the skill selections of up to three leading Ranked teams from each roster. See the new User Guide page for more details.
Please note that this is all still under construction. If you want to change something at this point, please check with me in IRC that I'm not currently editing it.
I have already completed surveys for the four rosters listed (I just haven't added a page for all of them yet). If you'd like to do some of the work and survey one of the others, let me know and I'll note that you're doing it. Check my notes and the existing Chaos page for an idea of how I'm formatting it.
If you have a presentation/format suggestion, please let me know. I'm sure it can all be improved, and it would be nice to keep it consistent across all the pages.
Please don't add a link from the main Strategy and Tips page until construction of this project is closer to completion! |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi 
Last edited by pac on %b %24, %2007 - %03:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:23 |
|
Three teams isn't exactly a huge sample. Nor is ranked a reliable indicator either given the skewed nature of being able to pick your games and the obscenely high TR these teams have. Certainly dont help you much in a proper tournament. |
|
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:27 |
|
| Quote: | | († This 55% rule is very arbitrary: it rules out many long-lived teams with good coaches whose reasons for not having such a high win% are varied: often a matter of being willing to play anyone, and persisting with their team despite the consequences of that policy. However, there has to be a 'quality' benchmark of some kind, and this is the one being applied.) |
*cough* say what?  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:31 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | | Three teams isn't exactly a huge sample. Nor is ranked a reliable indicator either given the skewed nature of being able to pick your games and the obscenely high TR these teams have. Certainly dont help you much in a proper tournament. |
Three teams when the teams have played hundreds of games is a pretty large sample.
And Ranked is what we've got.
Edit: To elaborate on that last sentence: this is a descriptive project, not a prescriptive one. Ranked has many flaws, but it is nonetheless where most coaches on FUMBBL play. Trying to change what Ranked is like or change where coaches play is a task for another time. The idea of this project is just to survey things as they are.
Added Dark Elves. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi
Last edited by pac on %b %22, %2007 - %18:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:32 |
|
| Freppa wrote: | | Quote: | | († This 55% rule is very arbitrary: it rules out many long-lived teams with good coaches whose reasons for not having such a high win% are varied: often a matter of being willing to play anyone, and persisting with their team despite the consequences of that policy. However, there has to be a 'quality' benchmark of some kind, and this is the one being applied.) |
*cough* say what? |
The criteria could certainly be different, but they still have to be clearly defined.
What would you have them be? |
|
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:35 |
|
i am merely suggesting that | Quote: | | a matter of being willing to play anyone, and persisting with their team despite the consequences of that policy. |
tells you something about said persons ability to give advice.
and you might have gotten that something backwards.. more experience means less wisdom now?  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:39 |
|
| Freppa wrote: | i am merely suggesting that | Quote: | | a matter of being willing to play anyone, and persisting with their team despite the consequences of that policy. |
tells you something about said persons ability to give advice.
and you might have gotten that something backwards.. more experience means less wisdom now? |
I agree. I've just added Humans, and I'd like to be able to include a review of the Hellfish in there. But they don't meet the current criteria.
How would you define the criteria so that we can rule in the 'right' teams, and rule out the 'wrong' ones? |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:39 |
|
of course, i am a bit biased since i am one of the coaches excluded by the 55% rule. |
|
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:44 |
|
why add a 55% rule at all? it makes no sense promoting cherrypicking to the n00bs, they'll get there soon enough anyway
and since you have three teams of every roster it pretty much covers it all anyway. why not make a special mentioning of another well known team in the cases you/whoever feels the top three teams aren't competitive enough? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:50 |
|
| Freppa wrote: | | why add a 55% rule at all? |
Well, take a look at the top 3 Chaos teams by games played. KhorneliusPraxx's Chaos are in there - who deliberately avoid taking Block first skill and take a random skill instead. Their win% reflects this.
There's no point just including the teams which have played for the longest - having played for a long time doesn't necessarily make a team/coach (or their skill selections) good. It just shows they're persistent.
So, again: what criteria would you define here? It's no good saying: 'we ruled out this coach because we think he's a cherry-picker'. This is a wiki: and everyone will have their own opinion. Instead we have to define clear criteria which, once established, can't be disputed - however arbitrary they may be. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 18:58 |
|
| Quote: | | There's no point just including the teams which have played for the longest - having played for a long time doesn't necessarily make a team/coach (or their skill selections) good. It just shows they're persistent. |
why oh why do you then use oldest as a criteria at all? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 19:01 |
|
| Freppa wrote: | | Quote: | | There's no point just including the teams which have played for the longest - having played for a long time doesn't necessarily make a team/coach (or their skill selections) good. It just shows they're persistent. |
why oh why do you then use oldest as a criteria at all? |
Because they have more players in the Past Players list. Not only that, their Past Players lists tend to display a consistent pattern. A team with just 10 games but a 10/0/0 record wouldn't be much help, would it?
Okay, I have a suggestion: how about ruling out teams with a win% of over 70%?
(This would mean, for example, tautology's Axiom replacing the Blood Falcons in the DE review.)
Edit: I think I'm going to go ahead with this modification. |
|
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 19:06 |
|
that actually sounds splendid.
what good would it do a noob to look at a 656/1/0 woodie team and emulate that?
i have no suggestions as to what criteria to use, i simply disagree with yours.. i guess that makes my criticism a bit subpar. |
|
|
toonook
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 19:24 |
|
subpar criticism is fine so long as it's delivered with gusto. |
_________________
"Well...take out the blood and yer left with somethin' that holds salad" - Bob_Borc, SWL |
|
Lucan
Joined: May 11, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2007 - 19:35 |
|
I dunno, I kinda like the idea. Speaking as a sub-average coach, anything that helps get a glimpse into better playing styles and coaching skills is useful. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Elf Draft Coach
Search
