FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Sep 30, 2003

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 03:52

Would the +AV choice be better if Claw worked differently or wasn't available?

From experience, -AV stat loss players tend to have a 100% chance of having their armour broken by precisely the roll that they would normally not broken them. I would be more inclined to keep a -MA elf for example than a -AV elf. Yet less likely to take +AV than +MA. Personally I think there is a fallacy in the way we collectively value +MA vs +AV. Perhaps the answer is about what is better for the team vs better for the player in question? A bit like taking Leader or Kick -> often the best player for the team but utterly useless for the player in question?

_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

Oscar Wilde

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 04:19

Grod wrote:

Would the +AV choice be better if Claw worked differently or wasn't available?

My answer to this is yes. Claw reducing all armour to 7 devalues armour quite a bit, in general. If Claw were less powerful, +AV would be more worthwhile.

_________________
"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!!" Razz

Tricktickler

Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 04:21

I would also keep -MA over -AV. High armor is simply better on the average player.

Yeah, there is definitely a paradox in most people's reasoning about this but my theory solves that paradox.

+AV is usually better than +MA (that's why people prefer zombies over skeletons) but is still worse than most skills and therefore seldom worth taking.

+MA is extra good on certain players however (treemen, one-turners, ballcarriers, sweepers, players with +AG etc) and is so good on those players that it is not only better than +AV but is also better than a lot of skills.

Therefore +MA is sometimes worth taking but +AV rarely is even though +AV is better on the average player.

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 04:46

@Tricktickler: I agree with what you say there. However, what about an Amazon linewoman, for example? Given the whole team only has MA6, having an MA7 might be more beneficial than 1 linewoman out of 5 with AV8?

I think part of why I lean towards +MA is that it can make an average player good, or a good player great. +AV doesn't do that - it doesn't really make your player better at doing anything. It just helps the average/good player you already have stay on the pitch a bit longer.

_________________
"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!!" Razz

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 04:49

thoralf wrote:

I'll take that over 0,007% more chances to score a OTTD if you don't mind, if only because I'd rather try to OTTD with a wolf on the board than with one stuck in the KO box. As if a GFI would prevent me from trying to OTTD.

Fair enough.
In my opinion a 1TTD is gamechanging and worth the risk of losing the Werewolf, especially if the 1TTD attempt happens on turn 16.
Having a Werewolf and not using him for fear of injuries is like having a car and don't driving it for fear of a car crash.

thoralf wrote:

When was the last time you saw a Wolf OTTD, and would you pick +MA or +AV on Ulfwerners? What about 8AV big guys?

I don't remember, but 1TTD with Werewolves are not so uncommon and they are worthwhile actions to try.
In an environment Claw-free (like a private league) I would take +AV, in the Box I would take +MA on Ulfwereners, I guess, but for sure not as first skill up. I use only the Yhethee, maybe on him I would take +AV because ST5 is a bit harder to target with Claw than a ST 3 player. I think that the TV is a relevant factor, at low TV Claw is less common, but when I'm at low TV with Norse I take core skills like Block, Mighty Blow, Guard on Ulfwereners, and once I have some skills I'm not at low TV anymore, so I don't take +AV.

thoralf wrote:

Of course +MA's useless every single turn you don't need your full MA. Since AV is useless because of Clawz, I guess people should stop playing with 9AV teams, or we should stop taking Tackle because there are dodgeless teams.

My point is that +MA is not countered by a skill (ok, Tentacles counters it but you can try to avoid the Tentacles players thanks to high Movement and Tentacles players are less common than Claw players).
+MA is useless every turn your player is not knocked down AND even when he's knocked down, if blocked by a Claw player.
The players starting with AV 9 don't pay that AV as much as +AV stat increase.
The stat increase is more expensive, therefore taking it on players starting with AV 8 or less to reach AV 9 is not TV-efficient.
About Tackle: before PO removal Tackle was less common so yes, people didn't take it because was not worthwhile. Now Tackle has increased its appeal as consequence of PO removal.
Anyway, at mid TV you can be quite sure than many teams will have 2 or more Dodgers.

Last edited by MattDakka on %b %22, %2017 - %05:%Apr; edited 5 times in total

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 04:55

Tricktickler wrote:

I would also keep -MA over -AV. High armor is simply better on the average player.

Yeah, there is definitely a paradox in most people's reasoning about this but my theory solves that paradox.

+AV is usually better than +MA (that's why people prefer zombies over skeletons) but is still worse than most skills and therefore seldom worth taking.

+MA is extra good on certain players however (treemen, one-turners, ballcarriers, sweepers, players with +AG etc) and is so good on those players that it is not only better than +AV but is also better than a lot of skills.

Therefore +MA is sometimes worth taking but +AV rarely is even though +AV is better on the average player.

This is a false dichotomy though, because you have changed the question.

Spending a skill slot and 10k extra over a skill is never worth it to gain a point of AV.

It really is that easy.

There are other skills which work similarly. Safe throw is just not worth taking, but if you play High Elfs the thrower gets it for free, so it's valuable.

NoS on pro elf catchers functions the same way.

Even Pass itself, while somewhat ubiquitous across rosters, is not worth taking either because it eats a skill slot, and (most of the time) a double as well.

Tricktickler

Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 05:04

JellyBelly wrote:

@Tricktickler: I agree with what you say there. However, what about an Amazon linewoman, for example? Given the whole team only has MA6, having an MA7 might be more beneficial than 1 linewoman out of 5 with AV8?

If it is an ordinary linemen without +AG or +ST it's probably best to skip both +MA and +AV and take a skill instead. But in a choice between +MA and +AV I would take +AV unless I planned to develop him into a ballcarrier or sweeper. (having one player faster than everyone else is good but I would wait until a catcher, blitzer or sweeper lineman rolled +MA instead of giving +MA to someone who will probably act as fodder).

Quote:

I think part of why I lean towards +MA is that it can make an average player good, or a good player great. +AV doesn't do that - it doesn't really make your player better at doing anything. It just helps the average/good player you already have stay on the pitch a bit longer.

Nothing wrong with helping himself and better players to stay on the pitch... It's hard to win if you are 2-3 players down so even fodder need to stay on the pitch as long as possible.

Tricktickler

Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 05:27

licker:

I agree +AV is never worth it if your goal is to minmax as much as possible in ranked and blackbox but in leagues and tournaments (with no TV caps) I do think +AV can be worth it on certain players. What would you take on a skaven lineman with Block on his second skill if you rolled 6+4 and his role is to stand on LOS? If your answer is Tackle, then repeat the question for the third skill and so on. At one point +AV becomes the best choice.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 05:34

You have skaven linos get to 2nd skills? Jealous...

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 07:03

Tricktickler wrote:

licker:

I agree +AV is never worth it if your goal is to minmax as much as possible in ranked and blackbox but in leagues and tournaments (with no TV caps) I do think +AV can be worth it on certain players. What would you take on a skaven lineman with Block on his second skill if you rolled 6+4 and his role is to stand on LOS? If your answer is Tackle, then repeat the question for the third skill and so on. At one point +AV becomes the best choice.

Why?

You want to carry line fodder that costs you over 100k??

I'd fire them if they didn't get guard by their third skill.

Tricktickler

Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 07:34

Yes. In general I think the more skills and stats on your players the better even if it is line fodder. Though there are some exceptions, a zombie with Block, Tackle, Pro, Dauntless for example is not the best player. Then I would rather take the inducements.

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 09:10

thoralf wrote:

The question is not about optimality anyway, but about worth. At best optimality is environment-relative. At worse it's the byproduct of imagination-free Naffy pseudo-Chess players.

I appreciate that you like to try and goad me, and that the best way of dealing with that is to ignore the troll (and I shall from here on out), but I'm genuinely intrigued. Do even you know what you're talking about half of the time?

In the Werewolf example you and Matt are discussing, +MA is the right answer. Your maths is wrong on the OTS, but that's not really the point anyway. Building players specifically to OTS isn't (generally) the best idea, but having skills that help all around the pitch every turn and in the event of a OTS situation is a good idea. MA 9 is great on a Werewolf and really helps the stars of that team flourish (people really underrate speed in general, but especially when discussing non-Elves / Rats). AV 9 helps keep a lesser player alive some of the time. You've never seen a Necro OTS? You're either very inexperienced or don't mix with good players. You'd not even take on a Necro OTS through fear of losing a Werewolf? If you're not trying to win games of Blood Bowl, that is fine, and it's your look out. But this is a Tactics and Srategy forum. Traditionally we try and help people get better, make the right decisions and win games of Blood Bowl. Having arguments for the sake of arguments and trying to goad experienced coaches who are trying to help is internet fun and games, but it's a waste of your time and the time of anyone reading this looking to improve. We used to be better than TFF.

As for 'imagination free, NAFfy pseudo-chess players', again you're showing your inexperience (or ignorance). That format is no more or less full of coaches making optimum team building decisions than your average skim through the FUMBBL games page (either by ignorance or design - BB nerds are BB nerds). I myself have knowingly made certain sub-optimal team building decisions on FUMBBL because of some environments I have played in, personal preference or flat out fun. But we're not here to recount that time I did a silly thing for the fluff in a league, we're here to help people with their tactics and strategy.

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 16:49

Dear Goo,

There are many good ways to help people with their strategical choices. None of them are contained in your pretentious wall of words. Here are good ones.

Try to answer the question being asked. Answering a question means more than saying yes or no. It means providing reasons why you think so. These reasons, in return, need to substantiate your opinion in a manner that would help the querent make an informed decision. Basic pragmatics. Basic pedagogy. Basic forum etiquette. Just saying "your maths are wrong" is silly: you identify the maths, you show why it's wrong, and you give what you think is a better answer. Unless you're into the business of making people (with or without your delightful passive aggression) bow to your natural authority. You know, like bullies do.

Showing your homework leads to my second pro tip:

Try to illustrate. Otherwise you risk ending up pontificating on some abstruse theory-Bowl, a bad habit epitomized by the (unexistent) Book of Dakka. For instance, "people tend to underestimate speed" begs the question at hand. It offers very little and the little it offers is at the very least irrelevant - the very question "is AV ever worth it?" presupposes some kind of awareness that players favor speed. This generality thus amounts in our case to condescension. Not everyone who ask questions on forums is looking for a grandstanding mentor. Sometimes there's no definite answer and the querent pumps his intuitions.

Which leads me to the third pro tip:

Think before but also while you type. This one may make your Inner Professor uncomfortable, so I'm going to finish with this one. The question being asked is if AV is ever worth taking. This can mean many things. Strictly speaking, finding one single instance should suffice. But if there's one, why not try to find another, and then another? When I say "trying to find" I mean thinking aloud. I know it sounds crazy to know-it-alls, but yes Virginia it's quite possible to offer something for consideration. Our civilization has been built on a communal pursuit of truth. You should try it sometimes. It's more fruitful than dismissing possibilia out of hand. Dare to stretch your imagination. It won't break.

This last pro tip should indicate why your rhetorical question reveals more about your own posturing than anything else. Allow me to clarify that point by returning to the wolf case. You seem to have missed the modality by which I've introduced it: I'd *consider* taking AV over MA. I did not say I would take it. I did not say I would not. I've seen enough necro games in the last few months (it's AD's favourite race and I spectate with him quite a bit) that I recall plenty of situations where a wolf acted like a one-man army out in the open to *suspect* that preventing him from being stun or worse can lead to wins. I also *know* that these situations are more common than one-turning.

Considering how the exchange unfolds, I am now more than tempted to take it. Even if not having 9MA means he may never reach 10MA. One-turning makes sense for championships first and foremost. For off-hand games, it gets onanistic. Pun intended.

Hope this helps, truly.

PS: Still awaiting to see reasons why Ulfwerners should always take MA over AV if a coach insists in taking the stat.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

Last edited by thoralf on %b %22, %2017 - %17:%Apr; edited 6 times in total

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 16:53

/grabs popcorn

Nom nom ...

_________________
"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!!" Razz

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Apr 22, 2017 - 17:22

Purplegoo wrote:

thoralf wrote:

The question is not about optimality anyway, but about worth. At best optimality is environment-relative. At worse it's the byproduct of imagination-free Naffy pseudo-Chess players.

I appreciate that you like to try and goad me, and that the best way of dealing with that is to ignore the troll (and I shall from here on out), but I'm genuinely intrigued. Do even you know what you're talking about half of the time?

Thoralf is just a psuedo-random word generator AI, so no, it doesn't really 'know' anything.

It seems to exist simply to spew out mostly random strings of words which seem to contain some kind of meaning, but if you really try to parse it you are left wondering what the point of it was.

Not engaging is really the best option at this point.

However, the title of the thread is

Quote:

Is +AV ever worth it

The answer is no, and that answer does not need any qualification because, again, the answer is just no.

People who answer yes have to defend their reasons for why/when it's worth it, but people who answer no, because it's a universal no, really don't have to.

So again.

No.

/thread