55 coaches online • Server time: 00:11
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post FUMBBL cup XVII: Pre...goto Post Mechavermin huntgoto Post Doubles on Tomb Guar...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
What to do with the Slann Blitzer?
No changes needed, the skill access makes up for the price.
29%
 29%  [ 44 ]
Discount Blitzer Please.
26%
 26%  [ 39 ]
Exchange diving tackle or jump up for block.
11%
 11%  [ 17 ]
Stop Complaining.
32%
 32%  [ 49 ]
Total Votes : 149


Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 23, 2018 - 23:40 Reply with quote Back to top

garyt1 wrote:
Harad you can spend a lot of time doing the testing but Catalyst will dispute the result anyway. Thus annoying you..



Well, duh. I know it works. I have done it. Witnessed it with my own eyes.

I have tried to convince him to play it where it can be seen by all.
If that was done I could dispute some aspects and others could dispute others aspects.
But really I cannot dispute his results if I can't see them played out.

How could any of you change my mind as to what I have seen and done?
Could I convince you that something you know of because you accomplished it 1st hand? No.

The only people here that might be convinced are those that insist it cannot be (with no evidence).
Many of them don't understand the argument enough to even know what it is.
But I could care less if they choose to hold to their belief in what they have no seen or done.

Harad's results could differ greatly from mine in either direction.
According to any standard of measure we have he is a better coach than I am.
Apparently he is never surprised or tricked by a savvy opponent.
His results, as the better coach, playing Slann his way are better than my results already.
So much better that he is clearly a Master of the Slann Roster.

I'm just a good to average coach at best and my results account for that.
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 00:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Very rarely, as I wrote. Not never.
So you won’t consider the evidence if I produce it? Even though you haven’t, that I know of, tested both sides of it. That would be a sad shame.
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 00:25 Reply with quote Back to top

Harad wrote:
Very rarely, as I wrote. Not never.
So you won’t consider the evidence if I produce it? Even though you haven’t, that I know of, tested both sides of it. That would be a sad shame.


I will be very happy that you tested it.

But it is as if people are saying... "you cannot swim the English Channel" OR... "you cannot climb to the peak or Mt Everest" to the guy that already did it but didn't have any photos taken when he did it because the camera fell into the channel or off a cliffside.


And now you are going to attempt do the same thing people say cannot be done. But you are purposefully not going to take a camera.


I didn't know pics would be required when I "got it on with Carmen Electra that one time she and I were stranded on an island". I was too busy doing the impossible at the time. But I know it happened. (Of course I am making that up. I WISH!!!)


And I don't doubt that your way of playing the team WORKS. It clearly does. I have made no claim that choosing Dodge is an outright waste of time and nobody should ever do it that way.

I've only said you don't need to do it that way. That there is another way with imo is better because of the skills you now have that you can't obtain to the same degree by taking a skill CANCELED OUT by Tackle once you reach High TV.
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 01:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Catalyst32 wrote:
I've only said you don't need to do it that way. That there is another way with imo is better because of the skills you now have that you can't obtain to the same degree by taking a skill CANCELED OUT by Tackle once you reach High TV.


THIS is not like arguing "you can't swim the English Channel" AT ALL. This is like arguing that it's better to drive through the Tunnel than to swim across the Channel. Or if you prefer that a curved blade is better than a straight blade to go TOP SHELF against a hockey goalie. Proving that you can elevate the PUCK with a flat hockey blade doesn't prove it's BETTER than using a curved blade. To prove that a CURVED blade is better than a straight one, comparing both is the way to go.

Also, there is also a FALLACY in your reasoning regarding Tackle. Having one Tackle doesn't counter blodgespam at all. You know what it counters? Your very exact build, with a lone Catcher the tackler can keep in check from afar. As a Dorf player known to put Tackle on slayers and runners, I know that relying on 4MA guy to tackle speedsters is a FOOL'S ERRAND.

Your argument amounts to say that guns are useless because people can wear BULLET PROOF outfits. But that doesn't work, because unless everyone has a vest, guns remain DANGEROUS. Only the NRA would think such arguments.

Finally, you said something a bit stronger than "I've only said you don't need to do it that way." Here's what you said:

Catalyst32 wrote:
I don't think Blodge is worth having on Slann. Use Leap instead. At least that is my operating theory. The Catchers need Block more than they need Dodge. And with AG4 and Pro their AG rolls will pan out often enough.


So please make up your MIND.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 01:17 Reply with quote Back to top

You know what works for emphasis, better than capitalizing an entire single word in a sentence? Making a simple salient point. I am exhausted reading this.
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 10:41 Reply with quote Back to top

If there were a way to do it on Fumbbl where I could play both sides repeating again and again the same game easily and without inconvenience to others that would be better.
If you are moderating your statement that certainly makes things less controversial. If you are saying that 'not choosing dodge but making other choices isn't all that bad' then I hope everyone would agree and I certainly wouldn't waste the energy on testing that. I'm sure you can see how others interpreted your comment as stronger than this though.
If you say it's better than taking some dodge I still think that would be worth testing as I think that would still be contentious.
Let me know though, I certainly don't want to spend the time on this if you are just saying that non-dodge skills can also be quite effective (although probably not as effective as taking dodge in a few more cases). I think that is very sound thinking and is something many people could benefit from. I've certainly learned from watching bghandras that particularly at low TV prioritising guard and mighty blow even on the 'non bash' teams can be very effective.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 11:17 Reply with quote Back to top

@Catalyst32 - What works for you may not be the optimal way. Seeing a die coming up 6 thus succeeding the action, does not mean this was the correct call. Needing that 6+, or needing a 2+ only, or no roll needed at all make huge differences, for example. So your eye test means nothing to me.
It is your choice. You can rely on eye test, or listen to logic presented by people you say they are better than you. (I am usually slow to read into CR, as i have witnessed almost perfect game from mid CR coach, and bad game from legend coach, so i take your word on this.)

Now, if you ask me, and say the magical word 'please', then i am happy to assist you, as i did with a lot of coaches. But it is not my job to convince you. I have a sentence i keep repeating more and more often: 'Everybody will play as well as he wanted. If a coach wants to improve, then will look for advice, look for improvement, will put the work into it, and will improve.' It is your choice. It is not my choice that you improve your game. I own nothing here, not even for the sake of the argument.

_________________
Image
'Best thing on FUMBBL'(Seventyone),
'AWESOME'(Kummo), 'Last league i would leave'(SpecialOne), 'Far far the BEST thing i played online'(Grunth)
Guardikai



Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Post   Posted: May 24, 2018 - 12:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Can I just put in here two things:

1) If bghandras has advice for you as a coach it is worth listening. He gave me just a little bit of advice and my game was upped immensely. I started looking at fumbbl differently and playing differently. It changed my strategy. It was a change for the better; I began to win more. It also helped me realise my own playing and team development preferences. I like bashier teams. Anyhow, maybe try a few games with bghandras if he is offering Catalyst - you will find it fun and insightful.

2) Harad - I am convinced you'll be going on a fools' errand trying to gather this data. It won't be heeded, we have the data anecdotally and to some degree mathematically already, and there are surely better things to do! Please stop being so nice Razz Of course, of course - your decision. I'm just in the wasted effort thinking crowd. If you do go ahead maybe put up a blog post or ten about it so we can offer support and cheer you on. I suppose if the findings are different that expected it would be quite something.

That is all ^^
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 01:49 Reply with quote Back to top

Harad wrote:
If there were a way to do it on Fumbbl where I could play both sides repeating again and again the same game easily and without inconvenience to others that would be better.
If you are moderating your statement that certainly makes things less controversial.

If you are saying that 'not choosing dodge but making other choices isn't all that bad' then I hope everyone would agree and I certainly wouldn't waste the energy on testing that.

I'm sure you can see how others interpreted your comment as stronger than this though.
If you say it's better than taking some dodge I still think that would be worth testing as I think that would still be contentious.
Let me know though, I certainly don't want to spend the time on this if you are just saying that non-dodge skills can also be quite effective (although probably not as effective as taking dodge in a few more cases). I think that is very sound thinking and is something many people could benefit from. I've certainly learned from watching bghandras that particularly at low TV prioritising guard and mighty blow even on the 'non bash' teams can be very effective.
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 02:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Of course I have been saying THIS from the beggining.
Not outright but REASONABLE MINDS would have to understand it is inferred at the very least.
If I am NOT taking Dodge I must therefore be taking OTHER SKILLS.
Skills that cannot be canceled out at any point in team development.

No. I cannot see how the people that keep coming back to argue DON"T SEE THAT.
I mentioned several times there are BETTER SKILLS TO TAKE.

IN the quote thoralf brings up from very early in the thread... sure it sounds much stronger... because I typed it very casually not too concerned with just voicing an opinion UNAWARE it would cause so many coaches to LOSE THEIR MINDS.
But had they put even an OUNCE of thought into what was said they MIGHT have asked what skills I would take instead rather than responding with all the vitriol and disgust and indignation. You would think I said I'd like to eat their families AND had the power to force each of them to feed them to me.

You DON"T need Dodge to win with Slann. There are better options.
Does using Blodge help with early wins by using what is EASY MODE on a young team, of course, because nobody really has Tackle at that point. (Except for 2 Rosters of 24.) But almost everybody gets Tackle as they advance eventually canceling out your Dodge. At upper TV it is largely useless unless you tend to avoid COMPETENT competition.

I've been accused of saying SO MANY THINGS that I NEVER SAID by so many people that just cannot read with any decent level of comprehension. People who rush to post contrary garbage based on whatever threw them into a nerd rage. Posts made with NO THOUGHT at all as to what I have been saying. No consideration of the idea. Just conventional wisdom, cookie-cutter, "let's play this game the same way no matter how different the teams CAN be" mentality and nerd rage.

I propose a better TEST that takes 1/2 of the time and can be seen by all. Test it out HERE in either Ranked or Box (although I don't have the time to play there. Maybe I would adjust my own approach if I were able to play there.). Just play it my way.
If you want to have 2 teams fine. But do you really need more proof that you CAN use Blodge effectively?
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 03:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Catalyst32 wrote:
IN the quote thoralf brings up from very early in the thread... sure it sounds much stronger... because I typed it very casually not too concerned with just voicing an opinion UNAWARE it would cause so many coaches to LOSE THEIR MINDS.


Sad SNOWFLAKE.

Here's a MORE RECENT quote:

Catalyst32 wrote:
I mentioned several times there are BETTER SKILLS TO TAKE.


There is a SMALL difference between saying that Blodge is not worth having on Slann and saying that there are BETTER SKILLS TO TAKE than Dodge.

But this difference makes NO difference for the matter at hand.

Either we NEVER blodge Slann blitzers, or we do.

It's as SIMPLE AS THAT.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Catalyst32



Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 07:07 Reply with quote Back to top

Of all the people that are so butthurt over this debate it is your, thoralf, that understands it the least and is most often totally of base when it comes to your replies. I would ask you to explain what you mean (multiple times, actually) BUT I really don't care what you have to say considering how far away from basic comprehension of the debate.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 09:51 Reply with quote Back to top

'let's play this game the same way no matter how different the teams CAN be'

My most important finding about this game is contrary to this quote. Except extreme cases, both teams play pretty general bloodbowl and they play mainly the clock, rather playing race specific. One should plan surprisingly similar tactics with all races in turn1, as an example.

Also, one does not need to test what a dedicated blitzer brings to the table. It is fairly straightforward to calculate the takeout % for the different skillsets, the turns advantage it brings, and the correlation between turns for and turns against. (I admit the interpretation is race-dependent, agile races have higher win % with worse turn ratio compared to low agility races.) I am only mentioning this as one could take a roleplayer on the team, and quantify the performance indicators, and its correlation to winning. It is possible to evaluate without testing.

_________________
Image
'Best thing on FUMBBL'(Seventyone),
'AWESOME'(Kummo), 'Last league i would leave'(SpecialOne), 'Far far the BEST thing i played online'(Grunth)
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 13:38 Reply with quote Back to top

It is surprising that you cannot see the room for confusion:
Some of your post above seems to be quite exasperated that people can't grasp that you are just saying that whilst blodge is good you can also do almost as well with other choices.
Some of your post above seems to be quite exasperated that people can't grasp that you are saying that other skills are better than blodge.

Some of the people who are confused may be stupid. But there are quite a few and some of those are highly educated with extremely high reading comprehensions. So the most likely scenario is that your communication is not quite as clear as you think it is. I totally accept that some of your posts will not be super precise with language because you didn’t think people would care about a detail but you cannot really blame them if they go with what you wrote.

I also don't see a lot of vitriol or indignation or lack of thought from others. They are sometimes reacting to your approach to communication which I can understand but in the main people are sharing their thoughts and making quite reasonable points. I may not agree with them all, but that doesn't make them thoughtless or deserving of a negative reaction.

I think though that you are coming down on the side of blodge being supoptimal. For example, you say clearly 'You don't need dodge to win with slann there are better options.' Although later referring to it as 'easy mode' is interesting. In a sense are we not always searching for 'easy mode'? Very Happy, Before anyone gets excited I can also interpret this in a different way consistent with an argument that blodge is supoptimal, but I think it's an interesting angle of thought.

Your proposed test was my first thought but a) ranked is going to come in for some serious criticism for testing as you can achieve whatever results one wants (see exhibit A Smile https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=789735) and even in b) the box, it's going to take a lot of games and I'm sure I'd encounter people saying, 'you only lost because you drew legend coaches/dwarves/whatever other reason people come up with'. The box works well as a scientific test when a large number of games are played. But aiming to play those games as an individual is daunting. To produce good evidence off a smaller sample size I think requires a more controlled environment.
I need no more evidence that blodge can be effective. As stated though, the issue for debate is whether A is better than B. Not are A and B both effective.

Incidentally I also strongly agree with bghandras. I think many people overstate the importance of different approaches with different teams. It's always just Blood Bowl with an assessment of probabilities and optimal play. I know why others think about it differently, but I think that's categorizing the problem in a way which leads to more confusion rather than less.
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: May 27, 2018 - 17:27 Reply with quote Back to top

Catalyst32 wrote:
Of all the people that are so butthurt over this debate it is your, thoralf, that understands it the least and is most often totally of base when it comes to your replies. I would ask you to explain what you mean (multiple times, actually) BUT I really don't care what you have to say considering how far away from basic comprehension of the debate.


Oh, now I got your ATTENTION, Catalyst. Allow me to clarify, Do not worry - I could not care less if you care for it or not.

Here is why. You formulated a provocative thesis - not blodging blitzers is better on Slann than blodging them. My quotes are quite clear on this matter.

Either you commit to it once and for all, or you don’t. You can continue to dance around it with LOTS of well resounding cliches, as is your wont. Or you can try to square off your shoulders, stand straight, and state clearly what you are willing to hold.

Your choice.

My own position regarding this debate is simple. Dodge increases survivability. I would go so far as to state this is a statistical fact, at least until not every single players have Tackle. Statistics differ from probabilities, but are related. As far as probabilities are concerned, here is my position - it makes little tactical sense not to take Dodge, as Slann is a balling race and they need to complete long strings of actions.

Your two arguments against these points (but tackle, but pro) are invalid. I contend that you do not commit to what you said because you have nothing against that. From an analytical perspective alone, it should be obvious you need to refine your take. This is your problem. You do not deserve getting help coming up with a more reasonable stance. Your obnoxious declamations need to stop first.

Your move.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic