FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: May 18, 2018 - 09:31

Craftnburn wrote:

For all the 'appendage' measuring people do around here you'd think they were chess players...

At least chess players dont try to reduce their agency in the games when they lose, right? How would that even go?

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 18, 2018 - 09:41

Cloggy wrote:

Fascinating game of theory-bowl here. Would love to see it played by two coaches with some actual Slann experience. This one if being fought by one coach with 17 Slann games and another with 54.

All that time writing long-arse forum posts might have been better spent playing some games with froggies IMHO.

That's why I tried to put an end to it earlier Smile

in an attempt at some weak humour.

As Cloggy observes, theory is fine but those theories must be tested. I and plenty of others have demonstrated that slann teams with dodge can be successful in many environments. This doesn't prove that dodge is a good choice but it at least suggests that it isn't a bad choice. The proof that it is a good choice is harder to find as looking for teams that haven't chosen dodge is limited because of the awareness of how good the skill is. But the evidence is there over the large number of games and choices as strong players are quite good at evolving their selections towards optimal as the game is simple enough that the human mind does a reasonable job of evolving the choices (I know Dhak was trying a no dodge elf team and eventually gave in and took dodge, annecdotal but he's probably one of the few strong players recently to seriously try the no dodge route). So I think we must at least accept that dodge is useful as a working theory.

I would be open to other theories but remarkable claims ('don't take dodge on slann') require remarkable evidence. It doesn't have to be any one person (they may not have the time, may not be skilled enough, etc.) but until or unless there is evidence supporting that better results can be obtained by slann without dodge it's not worth discussing further.

Craftnburn

Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Posted: May 18, 2018 - 18:24

Oh.. and more to the point of the article... I think the only change needed for the Slann Blitzer is -10K starting price. The difference doesn't matter much at higher TV, but at Lower TV and/or for rebuilding, it's pretty big.

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: May 18, 2018 - 22:00

Craftnburn wrote:

For all the 'appendage' measuring people do around here you'd think they were chess players...

I actually AM.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: May 18, 2018 - 23:30

Harad wrote:

Cloggy wrote:

Fascinating game of theory-bowl here. Would love to see it played by two coaches with some actual Slann experience. This one if being fought by one coach with 17 Slann games and another with 54.

All that time writing long-arse forum posts might have been better spent playing some games with froggies IMHO.

That's why I tried to put an end to it earlier Smile

in an attempt at some weak humour.

As Cloggy observes, theory is fine but those theories must be tested. I and plenty of others have demonstrated that slann teams with dodge can be successful in many environments. This doesn't prove that dodge is a good choice but it at least suggests that it isn't a bad choice. The proof that it is a good choice is harder to find as looking for teams that haven't chosen dodge is limited because of the awareness of how good the skill is. But the evidence is there over the large number of games and choices as strong players are quite good at evolving their selections towards optimal as the game is simple enough that the human mind does a reasonable job of evolving the choices (I know Dhak was trying a no dodge elf team and eventually gave in and took dodge, annecdotal but he's probably one of the few strong players recently to seriously try the no dodge route). So I think we must at least accept that dodge is useful as a working theory.

I would be open to other theories but remarkable claims ('don't take dodge on slann') require remarkable evidence. It doesn't have to be any one person (they may not have the time, may not be skilled enough, etc.) but until or unless there is evidence supporting that better results can be obtained by slann without dodge it's not worth discussing further.

The Human mind is also notoriously lazy and settles on the "good enough". 1 solution discovered by someone else and applied by standing on the shoulders of others solutions.
Until someone comes along and invents a better way the "old reliable method" persists because it was "good enough". And there is always push back on anything that isn't the "old-fashioned way".

Old tactics and methods learned from years of playing Elves and Skaven get applied to Slann because those methods were "good enough" for those DIFFERENT, but SIMILAR in some ways, rosters your great-grandfathers used to play the game.

But you are right, that just like when the machines that replaced hand tools and horse drawn carriages came along, there just wasn't enough evidence that those NEW machines are better than John Henry or Paul Bunyon were at doing things the "old ways", which MUST be the best ways, because LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE of times it worked before.

Well, in this case those "old ways" have FAILED multiple times before too. But IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE and just assume the coaches that tried it the "old way" were just not good enough, or lucky enough, or whatever by doing it the "old way".

And you are right, there isn't enough evidence from giving what I am saying a try. Mainly due to the biases of sticking to the "old ways" and the bias that back when you had 1 guy with Pro he SUCKED. The reroll FAILED back that 1 time and your already FAILED dice did not reroll. And therefore it will always fail, because LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (and continue to IGNORE the evidence of seeing Sure Hands or Dodge FAIL).

And continue to look at those AGILITY SKILLS and that evidence from teams LOADED with AG4 have with only needing to roll a freaking 2 performing a task they will make several times a game (Dodging).

Elves should OBVIOUSLY have Dodge... but is that due to the power of Dodge OR the power of the way that skill COMBINES with AG4.

Humans and Skaven &c should probably Pick Up and Carry the ball with their Sure Hands... they already have the skill.

But AG3 players SHOULD NOT Dodge multiple times per game. They probably shouldn't be the one to Pick Up the Ball UNLESS they have a Reroll Skill (or you don't have any with RR skills). They probably shouldn't Pass, Catch or GFI without a RR skill either.

Players with Leap probably should not Leap, Blitz, Pick Up AND Dodge away without some sort of Reroll skill. Yet an effective Slann Defensive turn probably asks at least 1 player to complete 4 of those rolls CONSECUTIVELY on 1 turn. The turn might even ask 2 or 3 players to make 2 to 4 likely 3+ rolls on a typical turn.

It sure would be AWESOME if those players you were using had 1 CHEAP SKILL they could use so... 1 could Leap and Blitz with RR... and another could Leap and Pick Up and Dodge away to Pass... and another could Catch a maybe GFI a couple times and run into the End Zone.

And to do that potentially WITHOUT AG4 and WITHOUT having to plan everything so perfectly for your War Dancers, Thrower and Catchers in the perfect spot to complete that turn. You could have ANY 3 RANDOM players positioned right to make it happen IF ONLY there was a CHEAP RR SKILL you could have spread amongst them.

And it sure would be AWESOME if that cheap RR skill could be applied to ANY ROLL made PER TURN for up to 16 times PER GAME and moreover that there was no other skill that would ever cancel out that skill. Especially a skill like Tackle that every team eventually acquires to counter the use of Dodge.

MAYBE if a few people THOUGHT ABOUT IT, and gave it a try, the proof you require would present itself.

But I suspect MOST will continue to see this debate BACKWARDS.
As in... if you need to Pass or Dodge alot then Pass or Dodge is better than Pro.
Rather than... if you need to roll lots of dice at various times then Pro is better than any other RR skills.

Cloggy

Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 00:11

That certainly took well more than the amount of time needed to play a game, so my point stands Smile

_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life.

Craftnburn

Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 02:10

thoralf wrote:

I actually AM.

As am I, hence my comparison! Wink

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 02:13

Craftnburn wrote:

As am I, hence my comparison! ;)

Your argument is INVALID.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

Craftnburn

Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 04:14

How so? There is a pretty good comparison to the way that chess players compare ratings like it's representative of their manhood... BB players do the same with their CR/W-L records...

Obviously there is no real comparison between BB and Chess of course... BB is closer to Poker actually!

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 04:16

Cloggy wrote:

That certainly took well more than the amount of time needed to play a game, so my point stands Smile

I was ON CALL for work at 1 of the BS things I do to get paid. And as a guy that sometimes writes for a regional newspaper (among other outlets) it didn't take me very long to lay out a rambling post that carries my message with an entertaining slant (for me anyway).

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 04:37

It is also possible to play slann in a conservative way. They can be positioned well, they can do blocks, all the not so fancy, but generally sound bbowl tactics. Good positioning could eliminate the need for multiple dodge with ag3. Actually a single good leap goes a long way towards that goal. Also having the slann catcher with dodge in position to scoop up the ball increases the chances of success. But it takes good positioning to have it around, as you need to semi-pin the opponent to a quadrant of the pitch.

Some coaches had success playing that way!

_________________

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 08:37

Remember evidence is not the restating of your opinion.
Evidence would be showing me teams where someone had achieved better results with these skill choices than strong coaches with the more conventional choices. If there is sufficient evidence then the view should be accepted. Otherwise we continue with the prevailing theory. Just post links to teams with better records with your skill choices. If nobody has chosen in this way start by demonstrating the comparative effectiveness to your coaching (again science is required).

EDIT - for my evidence I checked the top 10 slann coaches by CR in the box. All use dodge.

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 15:05

Interesting thread. I haven't played Slann a lot, but I agree with those that are suggesting the Blitzer's cost be reduced by 10k. As others have said, it would help more at low TV, where the Blitzers cost is more of a burden, but wouldn't have too much effect at mid-high TV.

_________________
"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

Weresquid

Joined: Mar 25, 2016

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 16:18

I do not simply follow the conventional wisdom in building teams, but prefer to rejigger the build gradually until i find something that works. I suspect most coaches do the same. Bb is not mtg, there is no one build that works for every team. Coaching matters more than skill choices, unlike magic where deck building is everything.

JackassRampant

Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Posted: May 19, 2018 - 16:31

Craftnburn wrote:

How so? There is a pretty good comparison to the way that chess players compare ratings like it's representative of their manhood... BB players do the same with their CR/W-L records...

yah, but it's not the same. It always comes with an asterisk. CR is easier to game than chess rating, and win rate is almost meaningless in either game, except that if it's high you probably have the basics down, at least well enough to pick your battles.

Re: reduced price Blitzers, meh, sure, whatever. It would help average or goodish coaches trying to start out, and it would only be a small boon for the top coaches who don't need it.

_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.