harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 20:25 |
 
|
If you read one post in this thread, read 'The_Sages', he's pretty much hit it on the head. If you were to avoid one, unfortunately I'd say Rat's, he's missed the point or really doesn't get the nuances, which is understandable as he wasn't here before CRP and has a strong competitive side. |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 20:39 |
|
I went back and read the sage's post and Rat's post. Harvestmouse is right (but not always right like Jimmy)  |
_________________
 |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 20:45 |
|
Lose all the people who care about B or R and you lose most of the people on the site. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:17 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | If you read one post in this thread, read 'The_Sages', he's pretty much hit it on the head. If you were to avoid one, unfortunately I'd say Rat's, he's missed the point or really doesn't get the nuances, which is understandable as he wasn't here before CRP and has a strong competitive side. |
Hehe thanks! Though to be honest, I wasn't here before CRP (well, joined about 1 week before), and have a strong competitive side. =D |
|
|
arry
Joined: Feb 26, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:18 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | Lets hypothetically assume 2 team builds.
1. Taking all doubles, all stat increases, spend all the money available on extra bodies and rerolls.
2. Maximize the value for buck, thus not accepting all stats, doubles, usually don't buy 16th player just because the money is available, etc.
Lets assume for the sake of comparison that Team build No1 produces the same power with 1500TV, as the Team build No2 at 1350 TV. The gap might be bigger, or smaller depending on the rosters, but for the sake of calculation lets take those hypotethical number.
Lets see what happens in League and in Blackbox. League gives an opponent based on schedule, while blackbox gives you based on TV. Furthermore lets assume, that there are only 2 type of team management in those groups, so you either face team build No1, or No2.
- League: If you run team build No1, and you are scheduled against team build No1, then it is a "fair" match. If you face the other team build, then you expect to lose, as the efficiency at the pitch is the same, but there are 150 TV worth of inducement. If you run a team build No2, then the other way around.
- Blackbox: Whatever team build you run, will be your opponent, with a few exception of strange draws, where the matchmaker has little choice but pair different team builds. But generally if you run team build no1, then you face team build no1, and if you run No2, then you face No2.
Ok, I fully agree that there are teams with different age, race, sweet spots, so you wont run it "fair and straight" at blackbox. But I believe this exercise shows that league is at least as prone to TV as blackbox is. |
I don't follow your box example. Isn't it as likely for you the hapless No1 coach to meet the No2 team grown to 1500? And hence be an underdog because the No2 has 150k `extra' of valuable skills? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:21 |
|
I love unintentional minmax. Skaven with one turners and clawpombers at 1200 tv and a bunch of scrubs because you can't keep anyone alive. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:24 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | Lose all the people who care about B or R and you lose most of the people on the site. |
 Self promoters need playmates. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:44 |
|
| arry wrote: | | I don't follow your box example. Isn't it as likely for you the hapless No1 coach to meet the No2 team grown to 1500? And hence be an underdog because the No2 has 150k `extra' of valuable skills? |
In this theoretical example with this theoretical roster the sweet spot is 1350, thus No2 stays at 1350 forever. |
|
|
Rat_Salat
Joined: Apr 22, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 22:29 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | If you read one post in this thread, read 'The_Sages', he's pretty much hit it on the head. If you were to avoid one, unfortunately I'd say Rat's, he's missed the point or really doesn't get the nuances, which is understandable as he wasn't here before CRP and has a strong competitive side. |
I guess this is true, because reading Sage's post and mine, they seem to be saying about the same thing, from my perspective.
| mrt1212 wrote: | | I love unintentional minmax. Skaven with one turners and clawpombers at 1200 tv and a bunch of scrubs because you can't keep anyone alive. |
This happens, quite a bit. |
|
|
Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 22:33 |
|
There is a big difference between firing a zombie to not give your opponent a wizard inducement, and fire a two skill positional because he didn't rolled a double or a +stat
The first event is possible in a league, the second one is EXTREMELY RARE, nearly impossible, but not so uncommon in BB |
|
|
WolfyDan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 12:09 |
|
Min/max is a game theory strategy that relies upon specialisation to win due to the low probability that your opponent has developed sufficient countering. It is the opposite of balance.
Example
For example in Command & Conquer you have lots of options of what to build. In a balanced strategy you'd build a bit of everything, but it could be tough to win an attack as your opponent (if also selecting a balanced strategy) would have a bit of everything to counter your bits of everything.
Let's instead say that you decided to build all helicopters. Now if you opponent has picked a balanced strategy then he won't have many AA defences. That means that your specialised helicopter attack will work really well as your opponent won't have the means to overcome it as his resources have been spread about. You have maximised your air attack and minimised your ground attack.
Of course your opponent could also pick a specialised defence. But not only would he need to do this, but also pick the right sort of specialised defence. So if there were 4 sorts of attack (heavy armour, light armour, infantry, and air) then that would be a 25% chance of winning.
Blood Bowl
Min/max is very common in blood bowl in many places. For example the Amazon team is a min/max team. It maximises on a key skill at the cost of stats (Mv6 Av7 is pretty sucky). Of course that works great against many teams at the start because there are not many teams that have a lot of tackle. If you face anything but dwarf / chaos dwarf you have a great chance of doing very well. But against a lot of tackle your max is neutralised and so then your min will really suffer as you have no backup.
Lizards are also a great min/max team from that perspective. Half your players are very bashy but terrible with the ball, whilst the other half is good with the ball but terrible at bashing. Although it is team balanced the individual players are min/max. This is why they do so well vs many teams, but why Wood Elves become a nightmare as they slip past the bash and beat up the skinks.
What people really mean in BB
However the common use of the term in BB is to develop all the power into a few players. This is beyond the 'sensible' rule of 5 to the point where you try to make the strong players very strong and the weak players as weak as possible. As TV is your resource it is trying to specialise as much as possible, and does so by exploiting a weakness of the TV system that is a lack of synergy. Skills can stack to synergistic effects, but the TV does not similarly scale.
So rather than develop a team which has great balance, allowing all players to skill up a bit, the focus is on turning a few key players into highly specialised roles whilst ensuring that all others are as cheap as possible. This is most commonly done by exploiting the most synergistic set of skills: claw, mighty blow, and piling on.
http://bbtactics.com/armor-break-and-injury-tables/
If I remember correctly against AV9 a successful block has a 2.8% chance of causing a Cas. Piling On, Claw, or MB increases this to 7.4%, 6.9%, or 6.5%. So each of these are adding about +4%pts. Taking all 3 on that projection would add +12%pts (to about 17%), but actually it increases it to 30.5%. But you still only pay +20k for each one. The killing stacks but the cost does not.
Thinking of TV as weight classes in boxing you begin to get an idea. Someone with a very powerful punch that can lose weight to drop into a lower weight class can be an extraordinary fighter. So it is with BB as most people go for TV as a matching factor, and box does this exclusively.
Information
Min/max is a weak strategy under 2 conditions.
1. The opponent has intel on how you have done it.
2. Your opponent is able to select an opposing strategy in time.
In the real world limitations might be speed of the enemy attack or inability to build machines that can counter it. In blood bowl this means being able to see what you will face, and having a team that can beat it.
This is why min/max doesn't work so well in ranked. Picker or not you have to be mad to agree to a match against a team of clawpombers. Making a killstack team in ranked can end up with you never using that team as possible opponents always dodge it.
It is also why it is king in box. You don't get to avoid it as you have no intel before the match. You also don't get to counter it because you don't get to select which team faces it, and because there really is no counter to clawpomb. |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 12:28 |
|
| WolfyDan wrote: | | Min/max is a game theory strategy etc. |
That is a great post |
|
|
Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 14:25 |
|
I think that the discussion still lack of the right differences betweem minmaxin in box and ranked and minmaxing in perpetual leagues
In perpetual leagues you cannot keep your TV at the best level for your team to be sure to meet only opponents of that TV range, while in black box it's usually exactly what you do
In perpetual leagues it's very rare (or nearly impossible) that you fire a 3 skilled positional because he didn't rolled a double or a +stat, while in Black Box it's not uncommon
In perpetual leagues you rarely find question like "My big guy didn't rolled the double at his second skill, should I retire him and take a new one?"
Thus, some very good explanation of what minmaxing is, lack the information on the environment that minmax strategy better apply. With that information, it should be very clear that the minmaxing issue apply mostly to fumbbl R and B division and thus, if you consider it a problem, it's a R or B problema and not a BB problem |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 14:56 |
|
| Rat_Salat wrote: |
I guess this is true, because reading Sage's post and mine, they seem to be saying about the same thing, from my perspective.
|
As I read your post, I'm inclined to agree. Must be a phrasing thing. =) |
|
|
WolfyDan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 20:06 |
|
@Leilond
I agree that in leagues it works very differently. It still exists in that the starter teams that are more min/max will tend to perform well early, but they will often get poorer later. If, for example, you are in a league with a lot of dodgers (zons, WE, undead) then it makes sense to take tackle early. And because people know that you will take tackle early to counter their specialist strategy it makes them less inclined to specialise.
TV is also a very different beast, because it has no bearing on who you play. As the substitute is inducements, which although helpful are rarely worth their alternative (would you pick a wizard or 3 temporary +ST?). This also means that it is worth balancing more because you cannot influence the teams you face and the extra skills are worth more than the inducements.
That said ClawPOMB still does not have an effective counter so you do tend to still see people develop in that way. So although the max is affected a bit it is the min that is more affected. I think that removal of inducements altogether, within the creation of a regular league that helps ensure that low TV teams are not immediately thrown up against killer high TV teams, would help this even more, as now there would be absolutely no incentive not to keep skilled players (other than to try and re-roll skills on players with useless skill access, like skinks). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
