87 coaches online • Server time: 21:37
* * * Did you know? 263 games were played yesterday.
Recent Forum Topics  New Gnones vs Old Gn... | Custom Icon, Portrai... | All Star Bowl! |
2012-09-15 20:32:42
28 votes, rating 3.6
28 votes, rating 3.6
Overblocking
I'm really surprised at the level of overblocking I'm facing at the moment. By that I mean engineering as many 2D blocks at the expense of position or tempo. 2D blocks are the meat and drink of the game of course, and if you have developed for Cpomb ignoring position early can reap rewards. But certainly at lower TVs it seems a strategy aimed solely at getting lucky on AV rolls.
For me Blood Bowl is a game of decisions based on risk management with a large element of luck. The challenge is to minimise the effect of the dice so that the best player wins as often as possible. That's where I find my enjoyment, but understandably other people have different motivations. But it can be extremely frustrating to play an opponent who opens his turn with a flurry of 2D blocks, and then there is a noticeable pause as they think about what they will do next. I am definitely a conservative coach, but it still surprises me the risks people are willing to take to get an extra block in. The number of times people open with a Loner block because that is all they have ...
/rant
For me Blood Bowl is a game of decisions based on risk management with a large element of luck. The challenge is to minimise the effect of the dice so that the best player wins as often as possible. That's where I find my enjoyment, but understandably other people have different motivations. But it can be extremely frustrating to play an opponent who opens his turn with a flurry of 2D blocks, and then there is a noticeable pause as they think about what they will do next. I am definitely a conservative coach, but it still surprises me the risks people are willing to take to get an extra block in. The number of times people open with a Loner block because that is all they have ...
/rant
Comments
Posted by pythrr on 2012-09-15 20:39:48
people are stupid
what's new?
what's new?
Posted by pythrr on 2012-09-15 20:43:07
more seriously tho, I agree. I think there are a lot of newish players here of alte - which is a good thing, of course - who haven't really played TT much (the cyanide kids) - and are having to relearn the nuances of the game. Also, CRP is much more "overblock friendly" than older rule sets that many of us learned with.
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-15 20:43:27
Kill all mens!!!!
Posted by the_Sage on 2012-09-15 20:49:48
depends a lot on the matchup though. Against young pro elves, there's almost no such thing. Against amazons, there's often no room not to. Against dwarves... etc
Posted by CW on 2012-09-15 20:55:16
I think it is definitely a trap I fall into sometimes. And, probably why my CR hovers at or below 150.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-15 21:13:42
I like a healthy block % myself, my natural game includes a lot of blocking. However I doubt that many open with loner blocks......
Posted by Joemanji on 2012-09-15 22:57:57
Yeah it's nothing new, I just find it annoying when 'bad play' works against me. :)
Posted by fidius on 2012-09-15 23:15:25
I find it annoying to watch newish coaches get berated by veterans when they make said 'bad plays'.
Posted by hale on 2012-09-15 23:27:22
Keep in mind that when you're playing against a better coach it can be in your favour to increase the element of luck.
Posted by Russo on 2012-09-15 23:55:06
I did not know we had played online yet Joe!!
Rated 6 for obvious ability to predict the future :-)
Rated 6 for obvious ability to predict the future :-)
Posted by Beerox on 2012-09-15 23:58:32
Perhaps this strategy they are using is something they find to be enjoyable.
Perhaps they haven't played 500 games, and aren't really sure what else to do.
Food for thought
Perhaps they haven't played 500 games, and aren't really sure what else to do.
Food for thought
Posted by PsyPhiGrad on 2012-09-16 01:13:27
Thankfully, you didn't start Azuring and coin a new insult for these type of players. They already suffer enough when they play poorly.
Posted by Kyyberi on 2012-09-16 08:36:11
Remember that sometimes they make the blocks, and then see how it turned out to decide how to proceed. So if they pause for a while after the blocks, it might be the fact that the outcome of those block forces them to rethink their plan.
But yeah, for some coaches the game is all about the blocks, and then something else. Is that wrong? If you think fluffy, there are some teams in Blood Bowl that doesn't really care for the ball or score...
But yeah, for some coaches the game is all about the blocks, and then something else. Is that wrong? If you think fluffy, there are some teams in Blood Bowl that doesn't really care for the ball or score...
Posted by Joemanji on 2012-09-16 14:58:55
Hi Kyyberi,
Of course it is not wrong for them to enjoy just blocking. But it is definitely not the 'right' or best or most likely way for them to win. I'm all for people taking whatever they want from Blood Bowl. But I don't care about blocks or casualties, I care about winning. So I don't appreciate the people who care nothing for winning taking that away from me. :P
Of course it is not wrong for them to enjoy just blocking. But it is definitely not the 'right' or best or most likely way for them to win. I'm all for people taking whatever they want from Blood Bowl. But I don't care about blocks or casualties, I care about winning. So I don't appreciate the people who care nothing for winning taking that away from me. :P
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-16 15:16:33
If you play in the ranked division you can choose to only play opponents of sufficient 'quality'.
If you play in the Box then you get what you get.
If you play in the Box then you get what you get.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-09-16 17:45:14
I am going to shortly begin a forum discussion around why standards on site have slipped over the last 12 months. I've been thinking about it for a while.
My gut feel is that the route of least resistance in CRP is blocking CAS, so new players don't learn things like positioning and tempo like they used to. I also feel that risk is better rewarded than it was in 4, so again, 'proper' BB is less rewarded. Also, there is far, far less forum and wiki discussion around tactics and basics than in 'my day'. And what there is is TFF style, poorly grounded in reality nonsense that isn't applicable or understandable in reality.
When you get a coach that puts the route of least resistance together with a solid, older school grounding, you have a combination that will get lots of wins in an easier, more one dimensional division like B.
It's a shame you weren't around in the site's heyday, Joe. I do really believe you would have enjoyed a level of competition above what we experience in 2012, online or in real life. I feel without the level of competition every game, I'm not as sharp as I was back in the day, before I start looking at others.
Interesting topic, anyway.
My gut feel is that the route of least resistance in CRP is blocking CAS, so new players don't learn things like positioning and tempo like they used to. I also feel that risk is better rewarded than it was in 4, so again, 'proper' BB is less rewarded. Also, there is far, far less forum and wiki discussion around tactics and basics than in 'my day'. And what there is is TFF style, poorly grounded in reality nonsense that isn't applicable or understandable in reality.
When you get a coach that puts the route of least resistance together with a solid, older school grounding, you have a combination that will get lots of wins in an easier, more one dimensional division like B.
It's a shame you weren't around in the site's heyday, Joe. I do really believe you would have enjoyed a level of competition above what we experience in 2012, online or in real life. I feel without the level of competition every game, I'm not as sharp as I was back in the day, before I start looking at others.
Interesting topic, anyway.
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-16 18:39:55
If you want cerebral bowl you'll need to tweak the rules.
That means [L]eague division.
That means [L]eague division.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-09-16 20:27:49
No need to be reactionary about it. Times change. It'll evolve back in time.
Posted by Garion on 2012-09-16 20:28:12
here here purplegoo, I'm half the coach I was 12 months ago. now i just click and play most of the time because luck is soooo much more of a factor in deciding games now imo, higher risk moves work all to frequently, win by attrition is common place and don't even get me started on fouling.
It's a shame but the main reason over bocking is so much more common place now is because you can easily get a respectable win percentage team doing so.
It's a shame but the main reason over bocking is so much more common place now is because you can easily get a respectable win percentage team doing so.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-16 20:42:47
Purplegoo wrote: No need to be reactionary about it. Times change. It'll evolve back in time.
Unless the environment changes why will it? The longer we go on, the more the current tactics are accepted for the norm.
Unless the environment changes why will it? The longer we go on, the more the current tactics are accepted for the norm.
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-16 21:08:16
I don't see why it would evolve back without a change of rules Purplegoo.
There are not going to be as many coaches around as before so it will be a longer wait if you want to hold out for a 'good' opponent.
The rules favour heavy bash and uber elves. POMB is a decent skill choice for most teams.
There are not going to be as many coaches around as before so it will be a longer wait if you want to hold out for a 'good' opponent.
The rules favour heavy bash and uber elves. POMB is a decent skill choice for most teams.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-09-16 21:25:54
It's always easier to presume the sky is falling in. Fashion will revert with experience with the new generation. And if it doesn't; we're still better off not being reactionary. I'm sure Joe did not mean to start the discussion you're both hinting at again, and if he is, I'd run away quickly anyway!
I never mean to encourage Garion's rules rants. Run!
I never mean to encourage Garion's rules rants. Run!
Posted by Rooke on 2012-09-16 23:47:27
I find it really interesting that a lot of coaches here go on about there being so little tactics involved. I respectfully disagree. I've played a lot of LRB 4 and CRP on here and table top. There are still a lot of tactics, but they've changed in nature.
Those of you saying LRB 4 was so much more tactically sound are no doubt referring to the glut of coaches here that applied the 'knockdown, surround, and foul' over and over again. Perfectly valid tactic for the time (made the game boring as dry snot in my opinion, but to each their own).
Fouling got downgraded, other skills got upgraded, and thus coaches have had to learn 'inferior' (aka. new) strategies or get left behind.
This isn't a ringing endorsement for LRB 6, I personally think they took team balance, which LRB 4 did better, and tossed it out the window. I find that the game play itself though requires every bit as much strategy as it always did, regardless of the rule set.
Those of you saying LRB 4 was so much more tactically sound are no doubt referring to the glut of coaches here that applied the 'knockdown, surround, and foul' over and over again. Perfectly valid tactic for the time (made the game boring as dry snot in my opinion, but to each their own).
Fouling got downgraded, other skills got upgraded, and thus coaches have had to learn 'inferior' (aka. new) strategies or get left behind.
This isn't a ringing endorsement for LRB 6, I personally think they took team balance, which LRB 4 did better, and tossed it out the window. I find that the game play itself though requires every bit as much strategy as it always did, regardless of the rule set.
Posted by pythrr on 2012-09-17 02:22:35
personally, I lay much blame on J-men.
hear me out: now we have free j-men, there is almost zero risk in running a team with 11 players, cos if you have an unlucky match, then you just recover next game. This mean that with most games being 11 v 11, the first team to get ahead in numbers (with a couple of cas) has a huge advantage on both the first drive (like the old days) but ALSO on the subsequent drives. This means the "get 2 quick cas" strategy is win.
just my 2c.
hear me out: now we have free j-men, there is almost zero risk in running a team with 11 players, cos if you have an unlucky match, then you just recover next game. This mean that with most games being 11 v 11, the first team to get ahead in numbers (with a couple of cas) has a huge advantage on both the first drive (like the old days) but ALSO on the subsequent drives. This means the "get 2 quick cas" strategy is win.
just my 2c.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-17 02:28:42
Yawn........that's such a broken record. If fouling needed fixing, which I don't really have a view either way, fix it. Also show me one coach with a higher foul rate than 3.5 who was successful in 4.
Fouling wise, removing the eye, has dumbed down tactics. However that's just partially to blame. Skill access and the dreaded aging seem to be more relevant (to the current point, not the OPs point).
If practically all the tactically acclaimed coaches of lrb 4 are saying that CRP is a dumb down the answer is either one of 2. 1. They can't adapt. or 2. The rules are a pile of dog poo, that have taken the game (tactically for higher TV team) back 10 years. You can decide which.
All this is by the by though, and thanks for bringing it up. I wasn't specifically referring to this, and Koadah certainly wasn't as that isn't his view.
Fouling wise, removing the eye, has dumbed down tactics. However that's just partially to blame. Skill access and the dreaded aging seem to be more relevant (to the current point, not the OPs point).
If practically all the tactically acclaimed coaches of lrb 4 are saying that CRP is a dumb down the answer is either one of 2. 1. They can't adapt. or 2. The rules are a pile of dog poo, that have taken the game (tactically for higher TV team) back 10 years. You can decide which.
All this is by the by though, and thanks for bringing it up. I wasn't specifically referring to this, and Koadah certainly wasn't as that isn't his view.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-17 02:33:48
Fix for Pythrr's point: Your cheapest 3 (maybe 2) players in a squad of 16 are free (TV wise). Simples, here yours free meercat.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-17 02:43:26
Also, Rooke, would your love of lrb 6 have anything to do with your ability to do well in lrb 6 compared to 4?
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=coachdevel&c=31920
If I was you, I'd love 6 more than 4 as well.
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=coachdevel&c=31920
If I was you, I'd love 6 more than 4 as well.
Posted by pythrr on 2012-09-17 03:28:27
HM - that would be a nice fix.
Perhaps as part of a TS for B? Hmmm? ;)
Perhaps as part of a TS for B? Hmmm? ;)
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-17 08:52:19
Heh heh.
I suppose you cannot mention the rules without starting a rules discussion. ;)
My point still stands IMO. People will continue concentrating removing players as long as it is an effective strategy.
Maybe Joe means people are still concentrating on bash even when it is not effective. Well, in the Box at least people just like killing stuff. ;)
Maybe Joe means too many people are just plain rubbish. Or that they appear rubbish because they enjoy killing stuff. ;)
On the other hand, I've been on the site for quite a while but was never actually part of the 'good old days'.
Those of us that are not really much good will continue to be not much good. ;)
If you want the 'high level of competition' you still need to concentrate your games on the better coaches.
Some people might actually like the idea that the lightweights might have a better chance of winning. ;)
If you just want to be able to roll up to the site and get a game quickly then there is a fair chance that you will draw a weak/bash first coach.
If you want better opponents you'll probably have to wait a bit longer. And a rules tweak (which you can do in [L]eague) might improve things even further.
I suppose you cannot mention the rules without starting a rules discussion. ;)
My point still stands IMO. People will continue concentrating removing players as long as it is an effective strategy.
Maybe Joe means people are still concentrating on bash even when it is not effective. Well, in the Box at least people just like killing stuff. ;)
Maybe Joe means too many people are just plain rubbish. Or that they appear rubbish because they enjoy killing stuff. ;)
On the other hand, I've been on the site for quite a while but was never actually part of the 'good old days'.
Those of us that are not really much good will continue to be not much good. ;)
If you want the 'high level of competition' you still need to concentrate your games on the better coaches.
Some people might actually like the idea that the lightweights might have a better chance of winning. ;)
If you just want to be able to roll up to the site and get a game quickly then there is a fair chance that you will draw a weak/bash first coach.
If you want better opponents you'll probably have to wait a bit longer. And a rules tweak (which you can do in [L]eague) might improve things even further.
Posted by Rooke on 2012-09-17 12:12:38
In all fairness to my LRB 4 record vs. LRB 6 HM, a lot of that came from my lack of experience. I was relatively new to Blood bowl when I first got here, and I don't think it was much of a stretch to say I was really out classed by pretty near every coach here (as opposed to only 75% of you now).
If you check any of my rosters, you will notice they're not min maxed or stacked full of claw/pombs, so it's not like I am taking pains to exploit the skills/rules that have everyone here so bothered. I've also gotten more selective in what I pick for games instead of taking every match that comes along (call me a picker if you like, been called worse).
As I mentioned in my previous post, there are things about LRB 4 that are superior to the newer editions. I just don't think that strategy is one of them. Not better, not worse, just different.
If you check any of my rosters, you will notice they're not min maxed or stacked full of claw/pombs, so it's not like I am taking pains to exploit the skills/rules that have everyone here so bothered. I've also gotten more selective in what I pick for games instead of taking every match that comes along (call me a picker if you like, been called worse).
As I mentioned in my previous post, there are things about LRB 4 that are superior to the newer editions. I just don't think that strategy is one of them. Not better, not worse, just different.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-17 17:10:08
As far as I know, I don't think pick, not badly anyway. My general opinion on how you play is positive. It's just very clear you are much better in the current environment (I have no opinion of why this is). So you're naturally going to have the opinion you have. However it maybe that you're wrong and weren't aware about 4 being tactically superior due to the fact you had less experience/success.
I thought about the argument about 4 being all about fouls. I had a look at some coaches that aren't playing now or haven't played much CRP on the site, but were extremely successful in 4.
Fischerking, csonti, circularlogic, malthor and smess. All have win % around 75% or more, all for 1 reason or another were very successful in lrb 4. Their foul rates were between 1 to low 2 fouls per game. Which means for these guys to win, they averaged around 1 or 2 fouls per game, that isn't very much is it? And certainly argues against '4 was all about fouling to win' mentality.
Yes there were some higher % foulers, in 4 that did well. Pigstar and Petew both averaged over 3, and in CRP their average has fallen below 3. However both have been playing a lot Wood Elf, which have very little to nothing to gain from fouling in CRP.
I thought about the argument about 4 being all about fouls. I had a look at some coaches that aren't playing now or haven't played much CRP on the site, but were extremely successful in 4.
Fischerking, csonti, circularlogic, malthor and smess. All have win % around 75% or more, all for 1 reason or another were very successful in lrb 4. Their foul rates were between 1 to low 2 fouls per game. Which means for these guys to win, they averaged around 1 or 2 fouls per game, that isn't very much is it? And certainly argues against '4 was all about fouling to win' mentality.
Yes there were some higher % foulers, in 4 that did well. Pigstar and Petew both averaged over 3, and in CRP their average has fallen below 3. However both have been playing a lot Wood Elf, which have very little to nothing to gain from fouling in CRP.
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-17 19:30:48
I'm agreeing with Harvestmouse for a change. ;)
Though LRB4 races could be quite nasty, their win%s don't seem to measure up to the best LRB6 bashers.
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/stats.html
Though LRB4 races could be quite nasty, their win%s don't seem to measure up to the best LRB6 bashers.
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/stats.html
Posted by Joemanji on 2012-09-17 21:17:58
@Rooke : There is definitely less coaching required in LRB6. This is mainly because the killer-combo is available to several teams on all Normal skill rolls. So it can be rinsed and repeated.
I agree with harvestmouse about LRB4 fouling. I played loads of LRB4 (though not on FUMBBL) and didn't foul much. Mass Dirty Player in LRB4 was just the Clawpomb of the times ... the cheap, mindless way for a poor coach to exploit the rules in trying to win.
This is why Clawpomb is (and DP was) so frustrating ... because it is an attempt to bypass decision making. I you want to just roll dice go play Yhatzee of or something. :P
Not that I want to get into rules discussions. I know two BBRC members - the official rules are not going to change, no point wasting breath on it. If Christer says he's thinking of house ruling it, I'll wade it. But I'm sure that would be a positive move overall for the site.
I agree with harvestmouse about LRB4 fouling. I played loads of LRB4 (though not on FUMBBL) and didn't foul much. Mass Dirty Player in LRB4 was just the Clawpomb of the times ... the cheap, mindless way for a poor coach to exploit the rules in trying to win.
This is why Clawpomb is (and DP was) so frustrating ... because it is an attempt to bypass decision making. I you want to just roll dice go play Yhatzee of or something. :P
Not that I want to get into rules discussions. I know two BBRC members - the official rules are not going to change, no point wasting breath on it. If Christer says he's thinking of house ruling it, I'll wade it. But I'm sure that would be a positive move overall for the site.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-09-17 22:17:31
Christ on a bike, some real stretching going on here. Fouling, rules changes, win % meaning much out of context...
Sometime in 5 years, the equivalent might be someone popping up with 'That Tuamadre, he was a right talent'. Time doesn't half rose tint opinion on some... Questionable individuals to make points!
Ho ho.
Sometime in 5 years, the equivalent might be someone popping up with 'That Tuamadre, he was a right talent'. Time doesn't half rose tint opinion on some... Questionable individuals to make points!
Ho ho.
Posted by koadah on 2012-09-17 23:33:20
Rose tint? Reactionary?
None more questionable that yourself Mr Goo. ;)
None more questionable that yourself Mr Goo. ;)
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-09-18 00:13:12
No I don't think so. I have not made any assumption about coaching skill, only success playing lrb 4. All the coaches that I mentioned have 2 things in common. 1, they won a lot of games, much more than average. 2, they haven't played any or much CRP.
My point was and is, that they were successful (at winning) without fouling much at all. I make no other assumptions what so ever other than, a large % of the most successful coaches in lrb 4, didn't feel the need to foul to win. Regarding how they achieved those wins, I make no assumption, however there's a fair variety there.
My point was and is, that they were successful (at winning) without fouling much at all. I make no other assumptions what so ever other than, a large % of the most successful coaches in lrb 4, didn't feel the need to foul to win. Regarding how they achieved those wins, I make no assumption, however there's a fair variety there.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-09-18 08:21:57
As a last wrap up point (the blog is gone!;)), I in no way agree that LRB4 Fouling was in the least an issue and you needed to do it to win. But there again, I've never had a Claw / MB / PO player either, and neither have several notable examples that do fine now. To look at that one variable and then decide that it's so important that it dominates win %, a massively flawed figure to measure anything with, and ignore all that is / was around it is just tremendously flawed. Malthor may not have fouled much, but when your entire life was spent cultivating the softest possible encounters, you wouldn't. He could have won some of those games without Blocking, frankly. People will win with or without the route of least resistance depending on any number of variables.
And that was the worst attempt at a wind up I've ever seen. Cyanide ease has dulled your fishing, Koadah!
And that was the worst attempt at a wind up I've ever seen. Cyanide ease has dulled your fishing, Koadah!
Posted by JackassRampant on 2012-11-07 22:13:27
There's other kinds of overblocking, you know. I've spent the last year learning how to consistently block my way INTO position, so I can keep the positional game going and throw enough 2d blocks (maybe 45-70 a game with a middling team, 45-90 with bashers) to do a fair level of damage. It's very effective against removal-oriented squads, like CPOMBers: the squirmy elfy types handle it a little better, but not as well as they're often used to.