thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
 Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 05:14 |
 
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | DP to the head of a clawpomber is great BUT you can very easily do a foul and get no effect or stun and have your player sent off. |
There's a 33% odd to get out, and (assuming 7+ for AV) a non-DP gets a 40% for a stun, a 17% for a KO and a 7% for a CAS. A DP gets something like 58%/31%/14%, which means you break even on a KO. For you it's a coin toss, but for the predator, his odds get worse every time a coach decides to take that risk.
The foul is made on a 60+60=120K guy minimum. The guy you risk losing is worth between 60K and 90K. The benefits outweight the risks. Also note that you could also foul with a guy to get him ejected too. Then the risks are minimal. The risks are also reduced when your team is built around that strategy, or when there's nothing to risk anymore in the game.
That said, I acknowledge that most coaches are risk-averse, me being the first one. But fouling is part of the toolkit, and must be honed. If bghandras estimates that fouling is worth it, I'd pay attention to it.
Finally, remember - there's always Sneaky Git. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 05:17 |
|
Still I don't understand how fouling can help my Slann when I get paired with cpomb teams way higher TV.
We might either hope people will start to mass foul even when it's not sensible to win the match or just introduce a TV limit that would make silly match ups impossible without relying on people's behaviour (people are selfish, generally speaking, this is why cpomb teams are an issue).
I play uncommon teams but this doesn't change the trend of the Black Box, nor I expect it will.
I'd like to play my teams vs teams of same TV or with a not incredibly high TV gap.
Who activates several teams and different races should have a TV gap protection because he's doing a good thing for the Box, while who activates only one super high TV cpomb team should face any TV because he's making the Box a worse place.
| thoralf wrote: |
The foul is made on a 60+60=120K guy minimum. The guy you risk losing is worth between 60K and 90K. The benefits outweight the risks.
|
If you make a straight TV risk/benefit comparison yes the benefit often outweights the risk, but you are forgetting that making a foul may require putting your players in a bad position and might lead to a tactical disadvantage.
Things are more complex than just TV comparison.
Moreover, the killers can be protected by team mates, making fouling them hard or impossible.
| thoralf wrote: |
Finally, remember - there's always Sneaky Git. |
Ehm, bghandras himself wrote in the last GLN to not EVER take Sneaky Git under the current ruleset.
https://fumbbl.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=30&page=11
 |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %18, %2016 - %05:%Sep; edited 2 times in total |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 05:30 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Who activates several teams and different races should have a TV gap protection because he's doing a good thing for the Box [...] |
Unless that implies that *both* you and the CPOMB guy not to be matched, you're asking for other players to get lousier draws. There's nothing Good there except your own.
If you can't see how the only way to deal with predatorship is to collectively retaliate, then consider sweet spotting Slann at a lower level. That way you'll get a higher win ratio. You can even think it's a Good thing too for all I care.
PS: As for the Sneaky Git comment, I thought it was clear by now that it was my signature. I'd add it to it if I knew now. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 05:34 |
|
Slann are not made for fouling tactics, their cheapest player is 60k and having a bench is a luxury.
High TV mismatches can happen even keeping the TV around 1500.
I'm playing Slann, not Chaos Pact with 0 team rrs. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 05:58 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Slann are not made for fouling tactics, |
Of course they are, Matt. That's why they got Very Long Boots. They can even leap to get nearer to a prone player. And they're green! Their catchers can even haz Sneaky Git!
Joking aside, I think there's a misunderstanding in how you approach this. No team can tackle the way Dorfs and Chorfs do. Does it mean you should stop building TPOMBer, a type of player that even you build?
Of course not. It's part of the toolkit. So you use it.
Khemri wasn't meant to play ball, yet sometimes they need to do so. It's part of the deal of playing Khemri.
Trying to optimize makes sense, until it doesn't. You can't build every team the same way. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 07:28 |
|
Thoralf is spot on. Tragedy of the commons. Dakka free riding on the sacrifice of everyone but himself. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 09:08 |
|
@thoralf - Thanks for the nice words. 
@Matt - If you feel you are underhanded, then you should take risks, and hope for good rolls. When i feel i have bad chances, then i am willing to do seemingly bad plays, just to increase the variance in the game. In such case the expected value does not do the trick, need to "make myself lucky". If in trouble, then give Nuffle a chance to help.
On the other hand if i am winning, then i dont want Nuffle to intervene. I am not interested in "win more" actions. I want zero dice rolls, or as few as possible. In such case fouling thus rolling more dice may not be a good idea even though the action has a positive expected value.
When i am winning, then i am not happy even with a 2+ with built in reroll (like dodge with ag4), i want to do better than the 1/36 fail chance. In such situation i rather make 2dblock, try making them 3d blocks when possible. And in such cases i tend not to foul at all if it can cause any trouble with my positioning. But dont forget that sometimes even then there is a "free" turn7 foul when there is a chance to take out a key player with minimal risk. So fouling is something to remember. Just use common sense. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 09:30 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
My issue isn't high tv. It isn't cpomb, and it isn't mismatches. It's losing the opacity of the matchmaker. |
OK. But that is largely down to lack of coaches. Dealing with the issue that is helping to keep people way will fix your problem.
| thoralf wrote: | | garyt1 wrote: | | DP to the head of a clawpomber is great BUT you can very easily do a foul and get no effect or stun and have your player sent off. |
There's a 33% odd to get out, and (assuming 7+ for AV) a non-DP gets a 40% for a stun, a 17% for a KO and a 7% for a CAS. A DP gets something like 58%/31%/14%, which means you break even on a KO. For you it's a coin toss, but for the predator, his odds get worse every time a coach decides to take that risk.
The foul is made on a 60+60=120K guy minimum. The guy you risk losing is worth between 60K and 90K. The benefits outweight the risks. Also note that you could also foul with a guy to get him ejected too. Then the risks are minimal. The risks are also reduced when your team is built around that strategy, or when there's nothing to risk anymore in the game.
That said, I acknowledge that most coaches are risk-averse, me being the first one. But fouling is part of the toolkit, and must be honed. If bghandras estimates that fouling is worth it, I'd pay attention to it.
Finally, remember - there's always Sneaky Git. |
Fouling to help win the game? Sure, if you think it is worth it.
Fouling to kill CPOMBers? You may as well just run a CPOMB team yourself.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 12:28 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Don't throw stones at Nuffle, Fumbbl, Box, or anyone else before acknowledging that predators are exploiting your own selfishness. |
thoralf, sorry but this doesn't make sense. A refusal of coaches to act selflessly doesn't necessarily mean they are being selfish. You don't think there's some middle ground there between those two extremes?
| koadah wrote: | | Fouling to kill CPOMBers? You may as well just run a CPOMB team yourself. :Wink: |
This is another aspect of the problem. The only true counter to CPOMB is more CPOMB, hence the neverending problem .. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 14:18 |
|
| bghandras wrote: |
@Matt - If you feel you are underhanded, then you should take risks, and hope for good rolls. When i feel i have bad chances, then i am willing to do seemingly bad plays, just to increase the variance in the game. In such case the expected value does not do the trick, need to "make myself lucky". If in trouble, then give Nuffle a chance to help.
On the other hand if i am winning, then i dont want Nuffle to intervene. I am not interested in "win more" actions. I want zero dice rolls, or as few as possible. In such case fouling thus rolling more dice may not be a good idea even though the action has a positive expected value.
When i am winning, then i am not happy even with a 2+ with built in reroll (like dodge with ag4), i want to do better than the 1/36 fail chance. In such situation i rather make 2dblock, try making them 3d blocks when possible. And in such cases i tend not to foul at all if it can cause any trouble with my positioning. But dont forget that sometimes even then there is a "free" turn7 foul when there is a chance to take out a key player with minimal risk. So fouling is something to remember. Just use common sense. |
I know well this approach, it can be summarized with:
"When you're winning play conservative. When you're losing play high risk high reward.
The actions you don't try have 0 chance of happening: no guts, no glory! Audentes fortuna iuvat."
Still, fouling cpombers is not that easy and effective.
Some coaches protect them and if you are playing vs a high TV team there will be multiple killers to deal with, therefore removing 1 of them won't make a big difference if your team is not very bashy as well.
Not all teams can have a bench, due to lack of gold and/or expensive players.
The purpose of the scheduler should be to make reasonably balanced match ups, if it fails then it should be changed.
Yes I could play a team for 15 games then retire it, but it's quite pointless playing Slann and Vampires for 15 games due to their lack of core skills.
I like to play with all the BB races for variety's sake and to improve myself.
My simple request is capping the TV gap at 500 TV or % of the lowest team TV, for example 15%.
I'd be ready to activate 3 teams as suggested (agile, bash, hybrid), since I activate multiple teams anyway. |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 14:40 |
|
Dakka, if you have multiple teams activating, just activate a bigger one.
There's nothing out there bigger than 2300 TV or so, and them not for long, so activate an 1800+ TV team and a ~1300 TV team and you will never face a gap of over 500 TV, and rather rarely over 250 TV. The power is in your hands, right now.
If you just want to play mid TV games against mid TV opponents with the same team forever it's called Ranked, in gamefinder, go nuts. In Blackbox, you don't know what you're going to get, that's the point, but if you don't want a big TV gap just don't have one. |
_________________
  |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 14:51 |
|
I have no high TV team, my Vampires got pushed back to mid TV.
I could play Nurgle only and get a 2000 TV team, but it's not interesting for me.
There is no benefit in playing high TV teams if they are not cpomb teams. Elves and Vampires can do well at high TV but they will probably not last long there.
I used to play at high TV and faced Chaos and Nurgle teams coached mostly by bad coaches, when I lost it was often for the high CAS suffered, not because they played better, I can't stand that and it's boring as well even when I win because it's spending 1 hour hoping for the best. If I want a luck based only game I can play a Slot Machine simulator.
I'm not going to play Ranked and I think you know why, if you want further explanations about that send me a PM.
Long story short: not every team can be played at high TV, and telling me to have a high TV team is just suggesting to play Nurgle.
If every team could be played at high TV then yes, I would agree with your suggestion, but, sic rebus stantibus, I don't. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 15:52 |
|
How about this suggestion for a change to the scheduler?:
Within the 30-game start-up period (or whatever it is), coaches can activate just one team, or whatever they like. BUT, for any activation of a team outside the start-up period to be valid, a coach has to be activating teams covering at least 3 of the following categories:
- TV <1400
- TV 1400-1700
- Bash
- Agile
- In-between
- Stunty
Still gives coaches some choice and flexibility, but would help improve diversity and prevent mono-activation, once teams are out of that starting period. It also still allows coaches to focus on one team to build it up and get started. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 16:02 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | A refusal of coaches to act selflessly doesn't necessarily mean they are being selfish. You don't think there's some middle ground there between those two extremes? |
As if standing to monsters who kill all menz was a selfish act. You don't think you gain anything by killing CPOMB machines? Unless it's on T16, the gain is immediate. There are recurring benefits too.
A selfish act is an act based on self-interest alone. If you only care about getting a game NOW, then don't whine if the predator gets one too. More so when it's against you.
| koadah wrote: | | Fouling to kill CPOMBers? |
I don't always foul monstrous machines that kill all menz, koadah, but when I do, it's just to scratch their bellies.
Perhaps you think that going full Cartman on B is for the Good of the community? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2016 - 16:23 |
|
| thoralf wrote: |
| koadah wrote: | | Fouling to kill CPOMBers? |
I don't always foul monstrous machines that kill all menz, koadah, but when I do, it's just to scratch their bellies.
Perhaps you think that going full Cartman on B is for the Good of the community? |
| tussock wrote: |
If you just want to play mid TV games against mid TV opponents with the same team forever it's called Ranked, in gamefinder, go nuts. In Blackbox, you don't know what you're going to get, that's the point, but if you don't want a big TV gap just don't have one. |
I suppose people will do what works for them. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
