mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 20:13 |
 
|
Box has gotten a lot better in the NA timezone and its in no small part thanks to the influx of new coaches and some of the longstanding ones who play the psychotic-mutato races not participating as much. Been making steady progress on my Box grid and getting pretty good variety. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 20:19 |
|
"The actual point is there are very few griefers on Fumbbl, compared to any other online PvP game."
+1
It's a great community here. Lots of coaches playing with different goals, races and builds but few who are just griefers. |
|
|
ArthurWynne
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 20:22 |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 20:34 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
| DukeTyrion wrote: | I tend to find the Blackbox mindset is about winning the match.
Most coaches that take M Blow / Claw do it because it is a fast way of skilling up their players, especially Nurgle Warriors / Chaos Warriors. It can be a risky strategy, but many of these players will make their blocks after the key actions of the turn have already been taken. |
This is contradictory in a fashion:
Taking mb/claw first increases your chances of winning if you are able to cas the other team off the pitch - ie. it is extremely dice dependent. If you do it on every single player bar the ballcarrier and continue to do so all the way up to 1500+ TV, you are not building a team optimally, you are front-loading and relying completely on your dice, your superior ST (both natural and on blitz) and in nurgle's case, on regen should you have to kick first. Nurgle especially if starting with the beast will be struggling for rerolls during all this.
To "win the match" you would want to reduce potentially bad dice rolls. In this case, these teams are not. You are hoping that by tipping the scales with casualties the 20% failure on a 2d block and 33% failure on a 1d will be largely countered.
If you skill every single warrior and beastman/pestigor (barring the ballcarrier) in your team in such a manner, you cannot "make your blocks after the key actions".
I know you know all this.
The point I'm making here is that you've just explained why people would do such a thing - it increases likely spp. But it does so in a manner that increases block failure - especially with teams that most of the box just puts in mass contact at low-mid tv. Thus, it is not geared towards short-term gain, but long-term growth.
In such a case, how can this mentality be purely "winning the match"? |
Where is it contradictory? And where does it say I am doing it on Pestigors?
I always take block first on my Pestigors, as they do all the key game actions (Blitzes, Ball Carrying), but in my mind taking Claw / MB first on Warrios makes complete sense. They normally make their 'extra' blocks after the key stuff is done, so 4 chances of a 1/9 fail matters little.
I see Warrios being most useful when they hit 51 SPPs and that is the fastest way to get them there and then, win more matches. Especially as half the time a new one is just playing catch-up to the rest of the team.
As for Nurgle teams specifically, I find they always struggle early, regardless of the build. They are one of the teams that benefits from being around a while. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 20:56 |
|
In response the original post...
I think there is something fundamentally attractive about playing a 'high damage' team / character. It is fun to shoot the 'big gun', playing the 'damage per second class' or create the 'killer team'. In many games this is fine but because in Bloodbowl coaches play not only to win but also to team build, and because -stats and deaths are permanent this approach can be seen as anti-social. Since in Ranked high damage teams tend to get avoided Blackbox becomes the natural opportunity for playing such builds. I do dislike the fact that because you can play such builds there the Box is often sold as that being all it is.
In reality I think there are two environments being supported in the Box. Firstly there is the low-mid TV 0-15 matches environment where teams are 'protected' from playing the high TV teams. This is a highly varied environment with a wide range of races, builds and coaching abilities. I think this is a really fun environment but the drawback is you can not play a team past 15 games and stay in this environment. Secondly there is the mid-high TV and post 15 games environment. In this second environment we see a higher proportion of high damage builds, partly because the chaos races have now got a decent number of skills, partly because some squishy teams get squashed and partly because some coaches are drawn to the high damage builds.
I think both environments within the Box can be fun but in the first you are limited to short term team projects and in the second you have to accept that sometimes you will get badly bashed.
My mind set in the Box is to play to win. I like the instant match ups and prefer not to be choosing my opponent (or them choosing me). I prefer the low TV environment because when playing against a heavy bash build I feel I have less ability to influence the outcome of the game (I feel anyone can beat me if their clawpomber has a good game). Now and then I dabble in the higher TV game, usually with a view to building for a major, but if I do it with something squishy it feels a bit like feeding the meat factory and when I do it with something high damage I feel like part of the problem so after a while I go off it. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 21:20 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
| DukeTyrion wrote: | I tend to find the Blackbox mindset is about winning the match.
Most coaches that take M Blow / Claw do it because it is a fast way of skilling up their players, especially Nurgle Warriors / Chaos Warriors. It can be a risky strategy, but many of these players will make their blocks after the key actions of the turn have already been taken. |
This is contradictory in a fashion:
Taking mb/claw first increases your chances of winning if you are able to cas the other team off the pitch - ie. it is extremely dice dependent. If you do it on every single player bar the ballcarrier and continue to do so all the way up to 1500+ TV, you are not building a team optimally, you are front-loading and relying completely on your dice, your superior ST (both natural and on blitz) and in nurgle's case, on regen should you have to kick first. Nurgle especially if starting with the beast will be struggling for rerolls during all this.
To "win the match" you would want to reduce potentially bad dice rolls. In this case, these teams are not. You are hoping that by tipping the scales with casualties the 20% failure on a 2d block and 33% failure on a 1d will be largely countered.
If you skill every single warrior and beastman/pestigor (barring the ballcarrier) in your team in such a manner, you cannot "make your blocks after the key actions".
I know you know all this.
The point I'm making here is that you've just explained why people would do such a thing - it increases likely spp. But it does so in a manner that increases block failure - especially with teams that most of the box just puts in mass contact at low-mid tv. Thus, it is not geared towards short-term gain, but long-term growth.
In such a case, how can this mentality be purely "winning the match"? |
Where is it contradictory? And where does it say I am doing it on Pestigors?
I always take block first on my Pestigors, as they do all the key game actions (Blitzes, Ball Carrying), but in my mind taking Claw / MB first on Warrios makes complete sense. They normally make their 'extra' blocks after the key stuff is done, so 4 chances of a 1/9 fail matters little.
I see Warrios being most useful when they hit 51 SPPs and that is the fastest way to get them there and then, win more matches. Especially as half the time a new one is just playing catch-up to the rest of the team.
As for Nurgle teams specifically, I find they always struggle early, regardless of the build. They are one of the teams that benefits from being around a while. |
Neither I, nor you, specified in either post that we were talking about your team(s) in particular. For the avoidance of doubt, I certainly wasn't.
The initial post in the thread referenced a "no block" chaos team (who have since, if you check, taken block on some players). There are, out there, similarly Nurgle teams who do not take block on the first 2-3 skills on any players barring possibly a single pestigor who's job it is to carry the ball.
My point was that with that sort of strategy, a coach is actually placing everything in the hands of dice.
It was not a questioning of your own preferred way of building/playing Nurgle - and indeed, you say that even in your own, more than capable hands, they struggle initially due to being a low active-skill and low reroll team.
What I am saying though is that to pick a skill progression that benefits a team long-run rather than immediately, or is taken with the ambition of gaining spp faster at the expense of riskier play, is in essence, selecting for team building - not winning matches.
I am not saying this a bad thing at all, nor am I questioning your own (highly successful) teams and their progression (and I do note you seem to relish the challenge of building and keeping a team alive in the box) - but what I am saying is that team-building can end up contrary to winning. Not in the manner of how you approach the match, but simply in regards to what your skill selections allow you to do within it  |
_________________
 |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 22:03 |
|
@ArrestddDevelopment
Just some thoughts...
Part of skill selection is the trade off between long and short term gain. I wouldn't put choosing M.Blow and/or Claw before Block into the category of 'not tying to win'. I did it last year on one or two players I had in a Nurgle team and I was certainly playing to win - but I also had my eye on the bigger prize of potentially having the team ready for a major sooner. Playing to team build is often about playing to win both now, but also later. In a sense choosing to play Chaos or Nurgle in the first place is usually a short term sacrifice in terms of winning for a long team team build potential so it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise if the same coach forgoes some short term advantage in favour of his long term goal. Also, in some cases forgoing the 'safe' skill (e.g. block) may not be detrimental to the team's wining chances anyway. For the 4th Nurgle warrior how many block is he making per game and when during the turn is he making them. If the answers are 'not many' and 'late on' respectively then it is very possible the 'riskier' skills turn out to be a 'safer' bet for impact on the game, maybe. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 22:18 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | @ArrestddDevelopment
Just some thoughts...
Part of skill selection is the trade off between long and short term gain. I wouldn't put choosing M.Blow and/or Claw before Block into the category of 'not tying to win'. I did it last year on one or two players I had in a Nurgle team and I was certainly playing to win - but I also had my eye on the bigger prize of potentially having the team ready for a major sooner. Playing to team build is often about playing to win both now, but also later. In a sense choosing to play Chaos or Nurgle in the first place is usually a short term sacrifice in terms of winning for a long team team build potential so it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise if the same coach forgoes some short term advantage in favour of his long term goal. Also, in some cases forgoing the 'safe' skill (e.g. block) may not be detrimental to the team's wining chances anyway. For the 4th Nurgle warrior how many block is he making per game and when during the turn is he making them. If the answers are 'not many' and 'late on' respectively then it is very possible the 'riskier' skills turn out to be a 'safer' bet for impact on the game, maybe. |
Sure, not a problem with this, and both you and DT are better coaches than I and thus better able to weigh up the risks of skill selection priority and positioning (in regards to coordinating your own block order in a following turn).
However, I was responding to DT's response to Throweck's initial example of a team with no block (at 1700+ TV no less), and basing my response upon that team plus others I have seen in the box myself.
If you don't have block on any but one player... Well. Everything is risky isn't it? That's what makes chaos and nurgle putrid to begin with - nothing is without risk.
I am not questioning anyone's wanting to win matches. But I do not believe it is the singular goal of box play for most. |
_________________
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2016 - 22:29 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | Endzone wrote: | @ArrestddDevelopment
Just some thoughts...
Part of skill selection is the trade off between long and short term gain. I wouldn't put choosing M.Blow and/or Claw before Block into the category of 'not tying to win'. I did it last year on one or two players I had in a Nurgle team and I was certainly playing to win - but I also had my eye on the bigger prize of potentially having the team ready for a major sooner. Playing to team build is often about playing to win both now, but also later. In a sense choosing to play Chaos or Nurgle in the first place is usually a short term sacrifice in terms of winning for a long team team build potential so it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise if the same coach forgoes some short term advantage in favour of his long term goal. Also, in some cases forgoing the 'safe' skill (e.g. block) may not be detrimental to the team's wining chances anyway. For the 4th Nurgle warrior how many block is he making per game and when during the turn is he making them. If the answers are 'not many' and 'late on' respectively then it is very possible the 'riskier' skills turn out to be a 'safer' bet for impact on the game, maybe. |
Sure, not a problem with this, and both you and DT are better coaches than I and thus better able to weigh up the risks of skill selection priority and positioning (in regards to coordinating your own block order in a following turn).
However, I was responding to DT's response to Throweck's initial example of a team with no block (at 1700+ TV no less), and basing my response upon that team plus others I have seen in the box myself.
If you don't have block on any but one player... Well. Everything is risky isn't it? That's what makes chaos and nurgle putrid to begin with - nothing is without risk.
I am not questioning anyone's wanting to win matches. But I do not believe it is the singular goal of box play for most. |
I agree most coaches playing in Blackbox probably have some other goal than simply winning the match they are playing.
Going back to the original post it is probably unclear whether a given build has been designed to 'grief' or to team build as the same skills do both. I'd like to think that few coaches are genuinely motivated by negative goals. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 00:19 |
|
Well, I like Box, I like Ranked.
BUT
When will Box out perform Ranked in matches played in a 30 day span?
Deep down, coaches do prefer Ranked over Box, they cannot help it. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 00:34 |
|
| PainState wrote: | Well, I like Box, I like Ranked.
BUT
When will Box out perform Ranked in matches played in a 30 day span?
Deep down, coaches do prefer Ranked over Box, they cannot help it. |
Never. We don't want the riff raff anyway  |
|
|
Incitatis
Joined: Feb 16, 2016
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 03:54 |
|
I'm new to the site and so far my mood and circumstances effect my choice to play Box or Ranked. If I feel focused and competitive, I play Box. If I feel less competitive or the wife and kid are likely to divert my attention, I play Ranked. In my admittedly limited experience I think I coach better in Box. Whether that is because the Box makes me more alert or I'm more alert when I choose to play Box, I can't say.
This might be a little off-topic but I think I would like it if there was a perpetual league that included the option to vary between the gamefinder and scheduler on a match-by-match basis. Sometimes I want to play with a specific team but would prefer the unavailable form of matchmaking. And it would probably help me to stay on-task building a team. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 04:54 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | PainState wrote: | Well, I like Box, I like Ranked.
BUT
When will Box out perform Ranked in matches played in a 30 day span?
Deep down, coaches do prefer Ranked over Box, they cannot help it. |
Never. We don't want the riff raff anyway |
It already did. After the new client was introduced, it was first available to Box. Even when ranked was accessible Blackbox remained on top.
Some newbies were complaining about the harsh environment at the time, so several measures were created to stop Box from outperforming Ranked.
The first thing was a new design of how you pick a division. Which was from a menu with symbols rather than a scroll list where Box would always automatically come up as the alphabetically first choice.
The second means was the addition of a description of Blackbox as a division for hardcore coaches that are going to rough you up.
And it was only then that Box dropped in numbers of participants behind Ranked.
I have lost since my interest for Box a good bit too, which is mainly due to the likelyness of running into an unfair match at high TV. This was introduced as a feature, not a bug to fight having old teams idle at low TV. Problem is when you play for a while, all teams get old. The 'problem' it fixed was an incredible statistical invariance since there were plenty of easy teams to beat at low TV and it was pretty easy to bypass the 'sharks' and to get to a hgiher TV. Now the fix is that you will run into crappy matchups on any TV. In difference to most I don't want a game at all cost and am actually interested in random fair matchups. So to be perfectly honest, ever since we have that rule my activity in box and Fumbbl as a whole has probably dropped on about 20% of the amount I used to play. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 05:00 |
|
There was a Blackbox before I arrived? Sounds like old wives tales. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2016 - 15:13 |
|
| ArthurWynne wrote: | | The competitiveness-stipulations in the rules are there to prohibit match fixing, cheating and agreements between coaches, not to limit what play-styles are allowed [...] |
There is at least one precedent which goes beyond this interpretation.
I think it's possible to imagine cases where disregarding the ball completely can't be considered a "play-style" anymore. |
|
|
|
|
| |
anyone know how to c...
Search
