pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
 Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:59 |
 
|
@Wreckage and Endzone: He actually does have block, as the original purpose of the thread was to determine his new skill. That's beside the point, because I had intended to ask what his value was as +ST, Guard, DP, which is what you both answered.
@Licker: I'm afraid I still don't see the distinction. In one case, I am improving my team by downgrading a player, and the other I am improving my team by upgrading a player. The methodology is different, but the result is similar.
If the issue is fluff, I don't buy it. Real sports teams make cost-over-value decisions all the time. The St. Louis Cardinals let their best player leave a few years ago and replaced him with a worse player because the cost/value equation was bad. This made their team better, and their fans couldn't be happier.
So if the issue isn't fluff, I seriously don't get what it is. |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:06 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | If scheduling is not decided on TV then the logical team build strategy is max max, since inducements are rarely worth the TV difference. (A consideration is whether a resource is worth the inducement equivalent). |
The question is really where you place inducements in value. You can't fully ignore the statistics that show a mildly higher success of lower TV teams over higher TV teams in mid to high TV matchups. One of the biggest asset aspects of inducements is that you can pick them. Meaning you get a weaker advantage but one you can be very certain will benefit you in the game.
While with stuff you buy for your team you have to make a rough estimate of what might help. With the guard skelli I think it is a bit like that:
Like in the right matchup he might be an assett and in the wrong matchup he might be a bloat.
Overall I think I'd prefer his inducement value over the player on the team. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:12 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Endzone wrote: | | If scheduling is not decided on TV then the logical team build strategy is max max, since inducements are rarely worth the TV difference. (A consideration is whether a resource is worth the inducement equivalent). |
The question is really where you place inducements in value. One of the biggest asset aspects of inducements is that you can pick them. Meaning you get a weaker advantage but one you can be very certain will benefit you in the game.
While with stuff you buy for your team you have to make a rough estimate of what might help. With the guard skelli I think it is a bit like that:
Like in the right matchup he might be an assett and in the wrong matchup he might be a bloat.
Overall I think I'd prefer his inducement value over the player on the team. |
Yes, even in an 'open' format you can get bloat. A wizard costs 150K, it's highly unlikely that skeleton is worth a wizard! But you don't have to be as careful with TV in an open format so you do in a TV matching environment. In the Box your opponent might not have a wizard, he may have a block-clawpomb beastman for 140K instead! |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:13 |
|
I might add the question of max-maxing for say a tournament environment was something I discussed very recently with bghandras to some extend on the forum.
He seemed to be of the option that if your team exceeds a bare minimum of high quality essentials would be already too much. He suggested to opt for a max tv at around 1800.
I think I'd be aiming slightly higher but certainly am far from believing in max-maxing in any environment. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:19 |
|
It is a proven fact that +ST players with DP foul harder than ordinary DP. NUFFLE rewards those who gorge themselves on his gifts. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:19 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | I might add the question of max-maxing for say a tournament environment was something I discussed very recently with bghandras to some extend on the forum.
He seemed to be of the option that if your team exceeds a bare minimum of high quality essentials would be already too much. He suggested to opt for a max tv at around 1800.
I think I'd be aiming slightly higher but certainly am far from believing in max-maxing in any environment. |
Perhaps I have used the term max maxing carelessly. Under the current rule set you still want all your TV spend on stuff that is more valuable than the inducement equivalent. This is still a lesser requirement than 'more valuable than what your opponent has spent his TV on' though, hence min maxing not being a big topic outside of Blackbox. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:22 |
|
| pubstar wrote: |
If that's your issue, can't you just play in the League division? I have a terrible [L] Norse team in DOTP full of permed guys that I can't retire due to league rules. The roster is quite bad, and the matches are quite fun. So if that's the type of Blood Bowl environment you desire, it already exists on this site.
|
Interesting, this seems to be almost all of my R/B teams. Why self impose my self to the penal colony of [L] when I can have fun matches in R/B? |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:27 |
|
| The_Provocateur wrote: | | And in lrb4 cutting your best players after legendary was considered good team management because they'd bloat indefinitely. |
Interesting
I was under the impression that LRB4 legends were retired because they usually were carrying between 1-5 NIGGLES from ageing.
You only took him to legend and fought through the Niggles for the goal of making a legend in the first place.
Also the idea of indefinite bloat IMO was a non factor because under LRB4 there were no inducements. Your TR did not give the other team to match your TR in the form of inducements, so, no need to fear a high TR under LRB4. In less you were petrified in fear of Virus. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:33 |
|
You see that is were the real "rub" is found under CRP.
The inducement system rewards low TV and penalizes High TV. The idea the lower TV team gets to match the Higher TV team in the form of inducement money is the driving force behind the scenes. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:35 |
|
My initial brush with BB back years and years ago consisted of my friends and I making uber huge teams with many skills and players and just enjoying the chaos. Later, when I realized that most games were played at lower TVs, I found it somewhat less interesting, just because of my initial brush with it (which wasn't 'real', but what you gonna do?).
After coming back to it ~10 years ago I had grown up enough to appreciate it in almost any form, yet, my personal belief was that the goal of a perpetual league was to build mighty teams which would mimic the crazy teams of my youth. At least that was how I approached R and B back in the day (well mostly R, I didn't care much for B).
Now, that's just my personal opinion, I don't hold it as some kind of absolute truth, but it gives me a different bent on what I think R (and B) should be. Ultimately though R and B have proven to be useless to me, as there is no actual goal to either, and the differing play styles (and opinions on what that play style should be) simple render them both absolutely uninteresting to me.
The only place (outside of L) which is seemingly relevant to me, are the majors. Why? Because that is where you see the teams that people build with the goal of winning an actual meaningful game. And what teams do you see playing in the majors?
Not min/maxed crap (and I'm using that term in the strict sense most of us interpret it for FUMBBL, not in any general sense), that's for sure. Ok, you can argue about how these R teams got built, and how they min/maxed their way to 2000tv or whatever, but that's not the point is it? They may have brutally fired players who didn't skill to their desired build, or they may have only played soft matches to get there. So what, once they play actual meaningful games they don't have that luxury any more anyway.
Is there any actual meaning in my rambly exposition? Probably not. Everyone has the luxury of enjoying FUMBBL (and BB generally) in any manner they see fit (as long as they can get a game...). I really enjoy the leagues I am in, and if I have found R and B to be garbage, then it can also be another mans treasure. That's not a dig on either R or B, they are what they are, and that is whatever the community makes them to be. If they are 'spoiled' by min/max, then they are also saved by it, since it simply matters what your preference is.
Yet, to go back to HMs earlier drunken mini-rant. Min/max being so heartilly embraced by the CRP set of rules is an issue. It works really well for the smaller short term events, it can even work really well in longer term leagues that can impose various house rules. But it turns open perpetual divisions into something which simply throws away so much of the game in search of a string of victories against opposition which isn't even (always) playing the same game as you are.
That's an issue in the general sense, it's not really an issue so long as there are games being played though. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:37 |
|
Which is why I think the transfer money to petty cash phase is totally rubbish. It once again rewards the lower TV team and penalizes the High TV team. If the high TV team transfers cash the lower TV team gets not only the equal share of TV differential between the teams but also gets the exact same amount of petty cash transfer for free on top.
This stuff lingers in the background of CRP but is a driving force on why you should min/max the TV. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:37 |
|
| Endzone wrote: |
Perhaps I have used the term max maxing carelessly. Under the current rule set you still want all your TV spend on stuff that is more valuable than the inducement equivalent. This is still a lesser requirement than 'more valuable than what your opponent has spent his TV on' though, hence min maxing not being a big topic outside of Blackbox. |
I 100% agree with that. I think part of what makes it so complicated is that.. like take a wiz.. A wiz can be a completely meaningless piece of equipment. When push comes to shove it's an advantage you always gamble with. If two teams face off, lets say one with a leap strip baller and the other without one and no sure hands but a wiz.
Otherwise both teams have fairly average players. Lets say both coaches can play, what difference does the wiz really make? It allows you to steal the ball once, the other coach can sack the ball from you at any give time.
So I'd know who my bet was on in such a matchup. Not on the guy with a wiz.
On the other hand when you picture two teams with tons of Blodge and utility Guard and MB facing off against each other I don't think it is that important anymore how high the TV really is.
Single little bonus perks like cards or a wiz can alter the flow in a way 20 additional skills couldn't.
I mean if you look at it mathematically I could maybe describe it like this (dumbed down):
A team with 2200 TV has only 10% more TV than a team with 2000 TV. So it's 10% more effective.
A team 1200 TV is 20% more effective than a 1000 TV team.
The Wiz I wouldn't see a linear bonus but more as one that adds about 15% effectiveness to a team. Ie. when you have already great players and utility you have much better options to draw an advantage from it.
That means in this rough estimate the 2000 TV team may come out on top while the 1000 TV might not. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:38 |
|
Yeah Licker, that's where I find myself with B & R. I find them both quite pointless outside of Majors.
Also very much agree with Wreckage's Wizard analysis. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 17:59 |
|
| pubstar wrote: |
@Licker: I'm afraid I still don't see the distinction. In one case, I am improving my team by downgrading a player, and the other I am improving my team by upgrading a player. The methodology is different, but the result is similar. |
The distinction is that you BUILT a skele who started with DP to 31spp in the first place. You should have fired him on 16spp, certainly not taken +ST. But you built him, so why now are you firing him? Again, I don't really care if you fire them, I just think that firing skilled healthy players is an unintended consequence of the rule set. One I think is bad. It's not like you're firing a skele you took 3 useless skills on, you have +ST and guard, 2 incredibly useful skills, you'd love on basically any player. Ok, he also has DP, that's a 20k sink, and a skill spot 'wasted'. So there's no place for that player in the game?
That's insane. 100k tv for a 5427 with guard and dp over a 5327 with nothing? Fair cost or not really shouldn't even be the question. It's simply does that player make your team better or not. If no, then why the hell did you build it in the first place?
If you cannot see how that's completely different from firing a player who takes a -MA I honestly do not know what to tell you. Would you fire your human lineman if he also had +ST and guard but took the -MA? Different teams, sure, different needs, right, humans need +ST more than khemri do, probably. Still, the point remains.
| pubstar wrote: | If the issue is fluff, I don't buy it. Real sports teams make cost-over-value decisions all the time. The St. Louis Cardinals let their best player leave a few years ago and replaced him with a worse player because the cost/value equation was bad. This made their team better, and their fans couldn't be happier.
So if the issue isn't fluff, I seriously don't get what it is. |
For some it's probably fluff, for me it isn't. But TV isn't the same thing as salary (unless you play in a league that does it that way...), and analogies to the real world simply don't work.
The issue is that firing a player who rolled a 6,6 and a 2,2 after taking dirty player, is a logical and intelligent thing to do. The issue is that anyone would actually think along those lines.
Again, if you already thought that way, then WHY MAKE THAT PLAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If you made that player and now suddenly think you made a mistake... well I don't know what to tell you, I think you're nuts to fire him, but if you play R or B and think there's an actual point to either, then you're pretty much nuts to begin with.  |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 18:06 |
|
I will finish with this thought before I open up my store.
So inducements + Stupid Transfer petty cash= Reward the lower TV team and penalize the higher tv.
Then throw this last dynamic on top.
Because Higher TV is penalized by transfer to petty cash that has reduced Gold to a pointless concept. The lower TV team almost never transfers gold in less it is a 50K transfer to deny the high TV the shot to match. Golds only value under CRP now is to replace players. It gives you no advantage to horde it in massive stashes.
Some coaches have claimed that hording gold is bad because it is a end around for the SE's for higher TV. That is bogus. Teams that horde millions of gold are the teams that suffer the least under SE and so even SE are a pointless construct of the rules for some teams. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
