22 coaches online • Server time: 03:49
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Theory-craft Leaguegoto Post On-spot substitution...goto Post Juggernaut as counte...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 16, 2019 - 23:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Hey, I been thinking...

This isn't inherently about +AV as an improvement, it's mostly actually about roster comparisons.

From AV6 on up, each net +AV defends against a progressively smaller number of permutations on the AV roll, but this represents a progressively larger fraction of the number of potential AV breaks.

AV6 allows 21 breaks out of 36 (58.3%), assuming no modifiers.
AV7 allows 15 breaks (41.7%), 6 fewer than AV6, a 28.6% reduction.
AV8 allows 10 breaks (27.8%), 5 fewer than AV7, a 33.3% reduction.
AV9 allows 6 breaks (16.7%), 4 fewer than AV8, a 40% reduction.
AV10 allows 3 breaks (8.3%), 3 fewer than AV9, a 50% reduction.

Which of these is more salient, when, and why?

Fire away.

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Risi
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 01:52 Reply with quote Back to top

AV 6 -> 7 would be the most salient because it both protects against the largest number of permutations and is not ignored by Claw, unlike every other AV bump. However I don't think there actually are any AV 6 players in any ruleset on FUMBBL that I would want to protect with +AV.

I think the number of permutations saved is the most relevant statistic, since it means stopping the largest absolute number of AV breaks. The benefits of progressively higher AV are real but the returns are diminishing, especially given the existence of Claw, the "fraction of AV breaks" statistic is somewhat misleading IMO.

Between this, and the opportunity costs presented by other skill access, I don't think I've ever actually taken +AV other than 7-> 8, because elves, Norsemen, catchers etc. might find themselves wanting that bit of extra protection, but +AV is honestly rather marginal so there are usually better skills to take (not least +MA.) I could see taking 8->9 on some players, e.g Troll Slayers and Human Linemen, who run out of other skill options and need to take a beating without getting de-pitched.

Then again I very rarely play any "mass AV 9" teams so there is some selection bias in my answer.
Antithesisoftime



Joined: Aug 20, 2014

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 01:55 Reply with quote Back to top

The numbers on it are meaningless
In practice and in my experience, my +AV players die more readily and more often than players with normal AV or -AV.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 02:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Antithesisoftime wrote:
The numbers on it are meaningless
In practice and in my experience, my +AV players die more readily and more often than players with normal AV or -AV.


That happens to me too, but I'm willingly putting them in harms way, way way way more often Wink
The_Murker



Joined: Jan 30, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 02:10 Reply with quote Back to top

"The numbers on it are meaningless"

Wut?

In the large human leagues like DLE and DLE2, getting a decent amount of AV9 players, especially on defense, yields a nice numbers advantage a significant portion of the time. As the teams get bigger in these leagues, one meta that is starting to emerge is the desire to accumulate AV9 or AV10 players. These players last longer, and gain additional skills to augment their 'staying power' on the pitch. In a league that lacks claw, +AV players are a legit expenditure.

In order to benefit from this 'longer term' planning, (read 'Dynasty Building') one has to be aware of, and respect, the gang foul.

The main reason orks trump humans in a Black Box or Ranked environment is not because of Black Ork blockers, but because of mass AV9. Non-claw teams find it difficult to get a numbers advantage on orks, so with the numbers, any coach has a shot, and great coaches can do their thing, more so if up players.

_________________
Image
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia!
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 02:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Was waiting to hear from a DLE coach here.

1) I'm not really talking about +AV as an improvement, at least not specifically. (That too, though.)

2) when it comes to +AV as an improvement, it's a bit of a digression, but the way I see it, the Benthamic calculus breaks down roughly like this (with no hedonic notation):
For +AV
* High-TV player
* High-utility player
* Low but not very low MA player
* Player with a full suite of quality accessible skills on profile already
Against +AV
* High or very low (3 or less) MA player
* Player with more active utility (as opposed to a cog or blocker)
* Player who really values normal skill access (or, in the case of 5+5, doubles).

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Risi
gamelsetlmatch



Joined: Mar 05, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 02:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Nuffle's got 99 Problems but Statistics aint one

_________________
Stargate!
Image
“In our play we reveal what kind of people we are.”
Applulz



Joined: Nov 25, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 15:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Pointless unless you can cherry pick your matches. Once you get to high TV is claw bash and elves/skaven only; both of which basically make it useless.

Maybe it could have some merit at low TV but then you are giving up a ton of TV. Is changing two players from AV8 to AV9 or something worth 3 of the opposition having guard? Probably not.
I think it should be changed to just be a flat -1 off the armour or injury roll myself; then they would not have to have nerfed piling on.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 16:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I think there are reasons in most metas for up to 3 singular +AV rolls on dedicated los fodders. In an environment where claw is available, but not present on every opponent it still has some value. Not necessarily the best choice, other skill might be better. Dodge has a counter, people still take it.

_________________
Image
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 17:33 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:
I think there are reasons in most metas for up to 3 singular +AV rolls on dedicated los fodders. In an environment where claw is available, but not present on every opponent it still has some value. Not necessarily the best choice, other skill might be better. Dodge has a counter, people still take it.


So from my experience in Box with High Elf Linos the following things seemed to be the true:

1. +AV Elf Linos will not last nearly as long as you might think in a LOS fodder role just by virtue of them taking more blocks initially. Factor in a lack of saving skills like Block or Dodge or even Fend and they just have a high initial "Interaction Factor" that overrides whatever AV9 is providing. This doesn't mean that on a per game basis that AV9 isn't worth it, rather, just don't get any ideas about developing AV9 Linos beyond that.

2. Dodge is actually the money skill in ensuring longer term development of Linos because there is generally not enough tackle resources on a team to deal with all of it on a 6 man defensive front (LOS all has dodge, 3 exposed players on 2nd line have blodge) and it provides a method of avoiding interactions if the opponent lacks tackle - just dodge away on a "best odds" 2+.

This is also true of Catchers but my feeling is there are better value propositions for skills on High Elf Catcher than dodge until about the 4th or 5th skill.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 19:17 Reply with quote Back to top

I did not ever mean to suggest they live longer. The justification (for me) is that they stay longer on the pitch. I very rarely lose a game when i have more turns than my opponent. (turns is a metric in the match report that counts how many turns each player and teams spend on the pitch)

_________________
Image
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 19:31 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:
I did not ever mean to suggest they live longer. The justification (for me) is that they stay longer on the pitch. I very rarely lose a game when i have more turns than my opponent. (turns is a metric in the match report that counts how many turns each player and teams spend on the pitch)


Oh, I was just adding my own experience to the conversation, not referencing a specific point you made.
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 22:42 Reply with quote Back to top

AV 6 to 7 is best at winning games by reducing the largest number of armor breaks

AV 9 to 10 is best at increasing the longevity of the player
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 23:08 Reply with quote Back to top

Assuming my players take the same number of blocks regardless of AV (completely unrealistic), if I take 1/3 less damage, my average player will play 50% more games. If I take 40% less damage, my average player will play 67% more games.

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Risi
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 23:33 Reply with quote Back to top

After going around and around and getting much hate on Facebook, here's what I've come to, regarding the relative value of +1 AV at AV 6-9, assuming no Claw or Mighty Blow:

1) The lower your AV (within this range), the more effective a net +1 AV is in reducing the number of injuries you take on a per-(block/turn/game) basis.

2) The higher your AV (within this range), the more effective a net +1 AV is in increasing the number of games your players play on average.

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Risi
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