FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Sep 19, 2005 - 18:23

Skrofler wrote:

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

However, I think if anything it helps protect them from unfair matches.

This kind of view is actually a tiny bit infuriating. You can not be protected from something you want to do. If I want to play stronger teams nobody can "protect" me from it. They can only stop me from doing it.

Well, the real issue though isn't whether you want to play the match or not - it is limiting cherry pickers who want to prey on great TS disparities, especially vs. Stunty teams...

And of course you can be 'protected' from something you want to do. Or you'd have babies sticking forks into electical outlets? Teens committing suicide because puberty hit them a bit hard? Dogs want to eat chocolate, though it WILL poison them and likely kill them. All a bit more extreme than the Blood Bowl example, but they illustrate the point - just because you want to do something doesn't mean you can't be protected from the damaging consequences.

Besdies, if your 'desire' results in other teams getting an unfair winning advantage, then it should not be allowed. What about the next coach who has to play that team, that just got 35 SPP pwning your goblins? And the coaches who seek your team out for easy wins and CR boosts, while the rest of us 'suffer' playing fair matches. That's the real issue here.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Skrofler

Joined: Aug 16, 2005

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 00:20

origami wrote:

Skrofler wrote:

There's rarely any reason to expect a fresh idea to be greeted by masses of cheering supporters.

It is certainly possible that you have come up with a brilliant new idea, and all of us are just too stuck in our ways to realize it.

The other possibility is that you are wrong.

Wrong about what, exactly? The quoted statement?

If you're talking about my problem it's not like there's a right way or a wrong way to deal with it. We just have different opinions based on what we want out of Blood Bowl.

Last edited by Skrofler on %b %20, %2005 - %01:%Sep; edited 1 time in total

Nordmark

Joined: Sep 09, 2004

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 00:34

freak_in_a_frock wrote:

i never voted, because the option 'I think it fine as it is, and stunties can play where they like' isn't there.

Seconded.

_________________
”The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is the fear of the unknown.” - H.P. Lovecraft

Skrofler

Joined: Aug 16, 2005

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 00:58

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Well, the real issue though isn't whether you want to play the match or not - it is limiting cherry pickers who want to prey on great TS disparities, especially vs. Stunty teams...

I wouldn't say that's the issue but rather the reason for the issue. The reason might be eliminated so as to avoid the issue.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

And of course you can be 'protected' from something you want to do. Or you'd have babies sticking forks into electical outlets? Teens committing suicide because puberty hit them a bit hard? Dogs want to eat chocolate, though it WILL poison them and likely kill them. All a bit more extreme than the Blood Bowl example, but they illustrate the point - just because you want to do something doesn't mean you can't be protected from the damaging consequences.

That is a very silly remark. I hope you do realise that there is a substantial difference between real life and a game of Blood Bowl.
Damage is impossible to inflict in this case.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Besdies, if your 'desire' results in other teams getting an unfair winning advantage, then it should not be allowed. What about the next coach who has to play that team, that just got 35 SPP pwning your goblins? And the coaches who seek your team out for easy wins and CR boosts, while the rest of us 'suffer' playing fair matches. That's the real issue here.

What do you even mean by all this?
You are discussing this, and has from the start, as if I somehow intended to lose. All I want is a fair chance and a bit of challenge. You go up against me first and then tell me I'm a push-over. Until then you have no grounds for such accusations.
What do you even mean by "unfair winning advantages"?

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 01:05

The +40/-40 TS rule was adopted to limit cherrypicking chances or very unfair matches.
It happens to hurt stunty teams in Ranked, I agree on that.
But my point of view is:
1- Many players have an issue with heavy cherrypickers.
2- Not many players have an issue with stunties in Ranked (many coaches play stunties in ranked just for fun and don't care about handicaps -or hire stars to avoid them - even if some are amazingly skilled with the little guys and can well stand their ground).

Point 1 is the good side the actual rule.
Point 2 is the bad side of the rule.

Since Point 1 affects many, and point 2 affects few, my point of view is that the rule solves more problems than it creates new. So it might well stay as it is.

_________________

Arktoris

Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 01:14

and point 3: the 40TS rule is only strictly applied to divR. Those that REALLY don't like point 2 have the freedom to play in stunty, ladder, unranked - both tourneys and freelance, and faction.

Skrofler, please move your goblins into unranked so you can be happy.

_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz

Skrofler

Joined: Aug 16, 2005

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 01:42

I am the happiest man alive. I always am. It's my forte.
No, I will never move Big Cheats away from ranked. Never, I say! I will first humiliate every single coach then have them admit I was right all along and make them beg for forgiveness. I won't grant them, of course. Then I will consider moving to unranked but stay anyway out of sheer spite.

And Jan, thanks for a well put post. Don't you think something could be gained from dicussing alternate ways to treat the problem with cherrypicking or do you also consider Team Strength the new messiah?

_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Sep 20, 2005 - 23:44

Skrofler wrote:

I am the happiest man alive. I always am. It's my forte.
No, I will never move Big Cheats away from ranked. Never, I say! I will first humiliate every single coach then have them admit I was right all along and make them beg for forgiveness. I won't grant them, of course. Then I will consider moving to unranked but stay anyway out of sheer spite.

And Jan, thanks for a well put post. Don't you think something could be gained from dicussing alternate ways to treat the problem with cherrypicking or do you also consider Team Strength the new messiah?

me me me for the first challenge at equal TR but +39 str!!!

erm no finally because it doesn't really interess me. I just see you THINK you can challenge at equal TR in high TR limit while the number of tacklers and skills just will kill you. ahhh arf no because there will be the +40/-40 str limit that might save you

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 00:40

Skrofler wrote:

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

And of course you can be 'protected' from something you want to do. Or you'd have babies sticking forks into electical outlets? Teens committing suicide because puberty hit them a bit hard? Dogs want to eat chocolate, though it WILL poison them and likely kill them. All a bit more extreme than the Blood Bowl example, but they illustrate the point - just because you want to do something doesn't mean you can't be protected from the damaging consequences.

That is a very silly remark. I hope you do realise that there is a substantial difference between real life and a game of Blood Bowl.
Damage is impossible to inflict in this case.

*sigh* this is what I was afraid of in using an extreme example...though I did try to mitigate this predictable response by noting that they are just for illustration as having the same basic point. Yes, physical damage to our bodies is impossible. The 'damage' is giving some coaches an unfair advantage.

Skrofler wrote:

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Besdies, if your 'desire' results in other teams getting an unfair winning advantage, then it should not be allowed. What about the next coach who has to play that team, that just got 35 SPP pwning your goblins? And the coaches who seek your team out for easy wins and CR boosts, while the rest of us 'suffer' playing fair matches. That's the real issue here.

What do you even mean by all this?
You are discussing this, and has from the start, as if I somehow intended to lose. All I want is a fair chance and a bit of challenge. You go up against me first and then tell me I'm a push-over. Until then you have no grounds for such accusations.
What do you even mean by "unfair winning advantages"?

Let me put it this way: do you honestly beleive that TS is completely ineffective as a predictor of which team has the more potential to win a given game? The forumla may not be 100% perfect, but neither is the law - yet it preserves some level of public order as it is meant to. TS serves as a fair predictor of which team has the advantage in a game. With no handicaps in play, a team down 60 points of TS (for example) is not very likley to win.

It is lovely that you want this challenge. I'm not saying you want to lose. But your desire for a challenge creates an advantage for coaches playing you that other coaches who don't play you don't have, and in a Ranked system that is unacceptable. There are plenty of other divisions where TS is not limited (ah - every other division acutally). Why not make a goblin Ladder team? Ladder could use the support, and you'll get matches against any opponent you like...

To be honest, your arguments start to sound suspiciously like BigMac, just trying to pick holes in a well meaning and well established (and largely effective) Fumbbl policy, while speaking in generalities without providing any acutal examples. How about posting some matchups that you think would be fair (as in, giving no undue advantage to your opponent) and let people be swayed by those arguments? Simply arguing the principal of things without any examples is going to convince no one.

And you could complain that I haven't provided any team vs team examples either, mentioning only hypothetical TR/TS numbers - but then again I didn't bring this point up either (and am quite happy with the current system, even when I had halflings in Ranked).

So please, throw us a link to your team, and then links to teams that are:
a) within TS range that you feel handicaps would make a most unfair matchup for you,
b) teams beyond TS range that you feel would be nice even, or at least challengeing but not unfair, matchups. Perhaps run some games like this in standalone, or find a history of such matchups from U division and analyse the results.

But just spouting how 'unfair' something is because it 'limits' you is beginning to get tiresome.

*p.s. before you take offense, keep in mind I did support your view in the pre-game ettiquette thread. When you make sense and I can follow your logic I'll agree with you...

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 01:43

i don't necessarily think the rule should be changed or alternate solutions found, as another solution than the TS rule, but nevertheless, he is right that this "protection" can only hinder a stunty coach who knows what he's doing.

situation 1: the two teams have the same TR but the stunty has a much lower TS. the game is indeed unbalanced. the stunty coach reliazes this, and since it's an open format, refuses to play. in this case, the TS rule is of no influence.
situation 2: same TR/TS situation than in 1, but this time, the stunty coach is pretty confident (because the opposing team is full of dump-off/diving catch players and the stunty team is full of +ST/Block with a couple of Dirty Players). He would like to play, he cannot, because of the TS rule.

so, for a coach who is not a noob, thus not a potential prey for cherrypickers, the TS restriction is bad. that was the point of the thread, and yes, the TS rule discriminates against stunties.

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 02:03

Eddy wrote:

i don't necessarily think the rule should be changed or alternate solutions found, as another solution than the TS rule, but nevertheless, he is right that this "protection" can only hinder a stunty coach who knows what he's doing.

situation 1: the two teams have the same TR but the stunty has a much lower TS. the game is indeed unbalanced. the stunty coach reliazes this, and since it's an open format, refuses to play. in this case, the TS rule is of no influence.
situation 2: same TR/TS situation than in 1, but this time, the stunty coach is pretty confident (because the opposing team is full of dump-off/diving catch players and the stunty team is full of +ST/Block with a couple of Dirty Players). He would like to play, he cannot, because of the TS rule.

so, for a coach who is not a noob, thus not a potential prey for cherrypickers, the TS restriction is bad. that was the point of the thread, and yes, the TS rule discriminates against stunties.

See? A few sentances and Eddy makes the point more clearly and understandably than five pages previously (assuming he's talking about the same thing, which from what I can gather he is).

Still I think the rule belongs there and does a good job most of the time. Besides, a capably stunty coach will tend to have a higher TS at the same TR relative to a n00b stunty coach (due to more intelligent skill choices and SPP farming).

And I don't claim (or didn't mean to, if I did say something like it) that the protection is for the stunties. It is for the rest of us - protection from cherry picking coaches fishing for matches heavily tilted in their favor.

I fell horribly victim to the 40TS limit rule once by accident (my team was just under 200 TS), and missed out on uploading an awesome game, but I still feel it is needed. As JanMatty's said, the needs of the many over the needs of the few.

Maybe it limits choices a bit, but then again a lot of things limit choices, right down to cherry-picking itself. I just can't agree that removing the 40TS rule would give stunties 'more even odds.' It would just give them more choice to ambitiously accept matches at less even odds now and then.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Skrofler

Joined: Aug 16, 2005

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 02:31

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Skrofler wrote:

That is a very silly remark. I hope you do realise that there is a substantial difference between real life and a game of Blood Bowl.
Damage is impossible to inflict in this case.

*sigh* this is what I was afraid of in using an extreme example...though I did try to mitigate this predictable response by noting that they are just for illustration as having the same basic point. Yes, physical damage to our bodies is impossible. The 'damage' is giving some coaches an unfair advantage.

Of course I wasn't referring to physical damage.
I didn't actually realise that you were talking about damage to other coaches. I thought you meant me. There are so many nannies around who think it's impossible to play even with stunties unless unlucky. I thought you were one of them.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Skrofler wrote:

What do you even mean by "unfair winning advantages"?

Let me put it this way: do you honestly beleive that TS is completely ineffective as a predictor of which team has the more potential to win a given game?

Well, regarding stunties it is actually pretty useless. It underrates unskilled goblins (puts it at 20k) and that goes a long way.
It drastically overrates some skills, like guard, for instance. A goblin with +1MA is worth 80k!
If I were to play teams of equal TS all the time I would dominate most games. That's my experience.
I just checked my history. When playing -30 TR opponents (which ought to mean my TS weren't higher) I won 10 and lost 4.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

It is lovely that you want this challenge. I'm not saying you want to lose. But your desire for a challenge creates an advantage for coaches playing you that other coaches who don't play you don't have, and in a Ranked system that is unacceptable.

I see the point. I just don't agree. Ban all the less skilled coaches and those who doesn't play to win (yes there seems to be plenty of those) and you're on your way to a competition without unfair advantage. Otherwise coaches can always pick their favourites and gain an advantage. Then you might want to narrow down the restriction to 20TS or thereabouts. 35TS between two orc teams is a helluva lot more difference than the same spread between a goblin and an orc team.
No, let's focus on the root of the problem. The serious cherrypicking. That could be dealt with in other ways.
On second thought, let's not. We've been through it and it wasn't a very popular topic. I won't bring it up until someone has anything to say about my suggestions.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Why not make a goblin Ladder team? Ladder could use the support, and you'll get matches against any opponent you like...

I might.

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

To be honest, your arguments start to sound suspiciously like BigMac

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

How about posting some matchups that you think would be fair (as in, giving no undue advantage to your opponent) and let people be swayed by those arguments? Simply arguing the principal of things without any examples is going to convince no one.

Nah. That sounds like work. It would also be pointless since there are thousands of teams which means you could easily find an example to support almost any case.
I've argued my case and the teams are all out there for anyone to watch. Look up any team with a TS of about 165 and I could beat that team. I'll have some trouble against elves and I'll probably win against a skilled dwarf coach only once out of five. Other than that almost any team would be a good match up.

_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00

Arcon

Joined: Mar 01, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 10:28

Eddy wrote:

situation 2: same TR/TS situation than in 1, but this time, the stunty coach is pretty confident (because the opposing team is full of dump-off/diving catch players and the stunty team is full of +ST/Block with a couple of Dirty Players). He would like to play, he cannot, because of the TS rule.

I see your point. But it damn looks like heavy cherry picking on the side of the stunty coach....

I wish I had a team with DPs, Block or ST upgrades, but my Halfling team managed to get 2 doubles out of 29 skill rolls. So, hmm, your description of that stunty team sounds a bit fantastic. With the words used here, that the rule of TS doesn´t work well for a very few, we should now say for the very very few of the very few...
Wink

Skrofler wrote:

Look up any team with a TS of about 165 and I could beat that team. I'll have some trouble against elves and I'll probably win against a skilled dwarf coach only once out of five. Other than that almost any team would be a good match up.

Now this sounds ridiculous. I don´t even think your team will survive more than 2 games vs a TS 165 Dwarf team. And even an Elf team at TS 165 will beat you up, having Block on most of their players and Tackle on some. So, they will no more dodge as the might do at TS 100-140, but hurt you.
I strongly recomment that you create a Goblin team in U or L, and play some of those games you say you will win. If you are right, and played vs good coaches, I might praise you, if not, this argument can be stopped once for all.

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 12:17

@Arcon
not necessarily cherrypicking, because my example was extreme (to make sure my point was clear, which is sometimes hard for a non-native english speaker =) ). you could well replace the situation 2 with an honest, balanced game, that both coaches would like to play, but can't. and yeah, i'd like +ST stunties too =P

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou

Skrofler

Joined: Aug 16, 2005

Posted: Sep 21, 2005 - 12:57

Eddy wrote:

i'd like +ST stunties too =P

This is an interesting side note.
Why bother raising strength on stunties? You're surrounded by weaklings anyway so there are few situations where it will prevent a 2db. They'll fight much better with block and/or guard. Also you are in constant need for skills like Sure Hands, passing, Strip Ball, Jump Up, DP etc.

By that way, I can't wait for the current vault rules to come into effect. Give Dauntless to those who need it!

_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00