23 coaches online • Server time: 02:09
* * * Did you know? The best rusher is debog with 8789 rushing yards.
Recent Forum Topics  DIBBL Awards | Secret Stunty Cup - ... | Blood Bowl 2024 Edit... |
2016-01-10 04:43:18
7 votes, rating 3.9
7 votes, rating 3.9
Skills or Stats
I recently played a couple of games with Amazons. Dodge is a really good skill. That is all.
Sal-uta... Just kidding
I had planned to write a bit about Amazons, but I don't have much to say. Hopefully, I will have more to say by the time I play my 12th game.
However, these two games demonstrated the truth to some disputed advice I read. The best skills are better than stats, but stats are better than most stats. The rookie linewoman dodges more reliably than a rookie elf lineman. In other words, AG 3 and dodge is better than AG 4. Similar comparisons can be made for other skills. ST 3 with block or wrestle is generally better than ST 4 for an individual block attempt although that depends on the result needed to qualify as success. Block dice are non-linear, and the math is heavily dependent on assists and both players' skills.
So why do coaches usually take characteristic increases over a skill when given the choice? Because the odds of getting +ST is 1/36, +AG is 2/36, +MA/AV is 3/36. Compare those odds to 36/36 for normal skills and 6/36 for doubles skills. I like this rule as it forces a choice of the best skill (immediate payoff) against the best development (long-term result).
Since the comments section went all over the place last time, a question for you. How would player development be different if you always got to pick your improvement dice? To clarify, the coach would just set the dice to a result instead of rolling them. Has anybody ever done a league like this? I doubt it would be more fun, but it might be an interesting experiment.
Sal-utations
Sal-uta... Just kidding
I had planned to write a bit about Amazons, but I don't have much to say. Hopefully, I will have more to say by the time I play my 12th game.
However, these two games demonstrated the truth to some disputed advice I read. The best skills are better than stats, but stats are better than most stats. The rookie linewoman dodges more reliably than a rookie elf lineman. In other words, AG 3 and dodge is better than AG 4. Similar comparisons can be made for other skills. ST 3 with block or wrestle is generally better than ST 4 for an individual block attempt although that depends on the result needed to qualify as success. Block dice are non-linear, and the math is heavily dependent on assists and both players' skills.
So why do coaches usually take characteristic increases over a skill when given the choice? Because the odds of getting +ST is 1/36, +AG is 2/36, +MA/AV is 3/36. Compare those odds to 36/36 for normal skills and 6/36 for doubles skills. I like this rule as it forces a choice of the best skill (immediate payoff) against the best development (long-term result).
Since the comments section went all over the place last time, a question for you. How would player development be different if you always got to pick your improvement dice? To clarify, the coach would just set the dice to a result instead of rolling them. Has anybody ever done a league like this? I doubt it would be more fun, but it might be an interesting experiment.
Sal-utations
Comments
Posted by Cavetroll on 2016-01-10 05:15:25
I've often wondered about an option for leagues where you could 'bank' a double roll or a stat increase for a later skill-up, thus just taking a normal skill in early development. Would this have an unbalancing effect or would it be fun for a league? I'd never consider it in the open environment....
Posted by MattDakka on 2016-01-10 05:30:57
"The rookie linewoman dodges more reliably than a rookie elf lineman. In other words, AG 3 and dodge is better than AG 4".
Yes, but when Dodge is negated by Tackle AG 4 is better than AG 3, you should consider that; moreover, assuming you can use a RR, AG 4 is better than AG 3 Dodge when a crucial dodge is required, not to mention that AG 4 is a general purpose stat for ball handling: your AG 3 Linewoman dodges better than an AG 4 Elf but is not better at picking up, passing, catching, intercepting.
You should consider all these things.
Yes, but when Dodge is negated by Tackle AG 4 is better than AG 3, you should consider that; moreover, assuming you can use a RR, AG 4 is better than AG 3 Dodge when a crucial dodge is required, not to mention that AG 4 is a general purpose stat for ball handling: your AG 3 Linewoman dodges better than an AG 4 Elf but is not better at picking up, passing, catching, intercepting.
You should consider all these things.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2016-01-10 05:39:18
A league where you got to pick your skill roll...only Block and Dodge would get taken as skill choices I think. The rest would be stats and apart from a couple of ballers and a one turner, all those stats would be +ST.
Posted by pythrr on 2016-01-10 05:49:27
What is your favourite cheese, dear coaches?
I likey me some stilton. Death to the Stilton haters!
I likey me some stilton. Death to the Stilton haters!
Posted by Uedder on 2016-01-10 06:06:16
Yeah skills over stats is a solid argument. Lots of teams rely heavily on skills, like zons, dorfs and norse. They've got crappy stats (norse a bit better, but av7 is really bad without blodge), but they're pretty strong rosters. Expecially off the bat.
Whereas Vamps for example, or Chaos, Nurgle and even elves (here again, elf catchers have the same stats as wardancers, but blodge leap > catch nos, even with great stats, start with very few skills, and in fact they're not as strong off the box. Except Woodies, because they have access to wardancers.
Obviously this will generally mean the teams with the better stats will be much better once they get the needed skills.
You kind of said it yourself. Block and dodge are better (right off) than stats. Some other skills might be worth considering, depending on player built.
I'd rather take leap over ag6 anyday. But I might pick ag6 if i have room for the needed skills for that player.
Thing is skills are situational (although dodge and block rule because they both affect the two aspects of the game, positioning and blocking), while stats are used all the time.
But they also cost more. +st costs almost as much as clawpomb and more/equal than blodge. Is a st4 guy better than a st3 blodge? probably not. That's why most minmaxers skip +stats altogether.
Would be interesting to see the built of a league like that. Would you take blodge first or +st? how many tackles will you want to have? Food for thought.
Whereas Vamps for example, or Chaos, Nurgle and even elves (here again, elf catchers have the same stats as wardancers, but blodge leap > catch nos, even with great stats, start with very few skills, and in fact they're not as strong off the box. Except Woodies, because they have access to wardancers.
Obviously this will generally mean the teams with the better stats will be much better once they get the needed skills.
You kind of said it yourself. Block and dodge are better (right off) than stats. Some other skills might be worth considering, depending on player built.
I'd rather take leap over ag6 anyday. But I might pick ag6 if i have room for the needed skills for that player.
Thing is skills are situational (although dodge and block rule because they both affect the two aspects of the game, positioning and blocking), while stats are used all the time.
But they also cost more. +st costs almost as much as clawpomb and more/equal than blodge. Is a st4 guy better than a st3 blodge? probably not. That's why most minmaxers skip +stats altogether.
Would be interesting to see the built of a league like that. Would you take blodge first or +st? how many tackles will you want to have? Food for thought.
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-01-10 06:49:42
I thought it curious that in the ultimate team thread from a while ago people suggested heavy investing in stat ups for the ideal build.
The argument for stats over skills is really that you don't want to remain on rookie level all the time. Any team with general access can catch up to the potential of a Norse team very quickly, at which point it will have Block and better stats for reasonable cost.
Take a human lineman for instance:
He comes with solid 6 3 3 8 for the same cost as the 6 3 3 7 norse Block-er.
The norse Block-er is of course miles better. But lets say the norse Block-er gets +av and the human lineman gets Block:
Suddenly you have a Block-er with the same stats that is 10k cheaper for the humans.
The situation is not different when you compare the Norse lineman to a Skaven lineman.
It doesn't help that you can avoid a stat up and choose a skill because after Block you pool of good skills to choose from is basically exhausted for your Norse lineman.
If you then account for skill access the situation just gets more extreme. If you think of for instance Amazon vs Pro Elf the Amazon skills are of course huge over the +ag. But the Pro Elves not only need some simple skill ups to catch up rather than stats at a cheaper cost, they also get a massive synergy from Dodge + Ag4 in itself.
So stats don't exists in an empty space. There is some interaction with skills and cheap accessibility to both is key for developing a good team.
So as you see the main dilemma with stat ups is that the cost will inevitably make the players more expensive than players that start out with good stats and choose skills instead.
But why do people still choose stat ups? Basically because there is no way to develop a team further at a certain point and taking stats early on is just thinking ahead. Personally I can not recommend too much thinking ahead but everyone their own, right?
The probably most extreme example of this dilemma is Chaos. Chaos is one of the worst starting races. Yet Chaos has easily the skill access to go through five of its skill ups without having to worry about stat ups or doubles. For a chaos team the mere existance of stat ups is probably more of an issue than a help.
The only reason to ever choose a stat up here is to develop a highly specialized piece but no doubt that that is costly. And not necessarily a good idea.
Yet either way, on the high end of the spectrum in TV you will find some Chaos, then perhaps then Nurgle and then a long time nothing. With perhaps some small competition from other natural high stat races like the elvish ones.
So the question is: Is there really no way for a good starting race like Norse to get good at high TV?
Sure, with some lucky stat ups you can probably keep up at high TV. So if you want to have a high TV team that is the only way to go.
But if you just strikly look at the cost you have to realize that you are still paying some extra TV for the same stats others get for cheap from the start.
So is there really no way for a Norse team to ever get an edge instead of constantly falling behind as it grows?
Sure there is. Stick to skill-less linemen and nobody is going to be able to match your low cost quality players ever. Go the inducement way.
The argument for stats over skills is really that you don't want to remain on rookie level all the time. Any team with general access can catch up to the potential of a Norse team very quickly, at which point it will have Block and better stats for reasonable cost.
Take a human lineman for instance:
He comes with solid 6 3 3 8 for the same cost as the 6 3 3 7 norse Block-er.
The norse Block-er is of course miles better. But lets say the norse Block-er gets +av and the human lineman gets Block:
Suddenly you have a Block-er with the same stats that is 10k cheaper for the humans.
The situation is not different when you compare the Norse lineman to a Skaven lineman.
It doesn't help that you can avoid a stat up and choose a skill because after Block you pool of good skills to choose from is basically exhausted for your Norse lineman.
If you then account for skill access the situation just gets more extreme. If you think of for instance Amazon vs Pro Elf the Amazon skills are of course huge over the +ag. But the Pro Elves not only need some simple skill ups to catch up rather than stats at a cheaper cost, they also get a massive synergy from Dodge + Ag4 in itself.
So stats don't exists in an empty space. There is some interaction with skills and cheap accessibility to both is key for developing a good team.
So as you see the main dilemma with stat ups is that the cost will inevitably make the players more expensive than players that start out with good stats and choose skills instead.
But why do people still choose stat ups? Basically because there is no way to develop a team further at a certain point and taking stats early on is just thinking ahead. Personally I can not recommend too much thinking ahead but everyone their own, right?
The probably most extreme example of this dilemma is Chaos. Chaos is one of the worst starting races. Yet Chaos has easily the skill access to go through five of its skill ups without having to worry about stat ups or doubles. For a chaos team the mere existance of stat ups is probably more of an issue than a help.
The only reason to ever choose a stat up here is to develop a highly specialized piece but no doubt that that is costly. And not necessarily a good idea.
Yet either way, on the high end of the spectrum in TV you will find some Chaos, then perhaps then Nurgle and then a long time nothing. With perhaps some small competition from other natural high stat races like the elvish ones.
So the question is: Is there really no way for a good starting race like Norse to get good at high TV?
Sure, with some lucky stat ups you can probably keep up at high TV. So if you want to have a high TV team that is the only way to go.
But if you just strikly look at the cost you have to realize that you are still paying some extra TV for the same stats others get for cheap from the start.
So is there really no way for a Norse team to ever get an edge instead of constantly falling behind as it grows?
Sure there is. Stick to skill-less linemen and nobody is going to be able to match your low cost quality players ever. Go the inducement way.
Posted by bghandras on 2016-01-10 09:44:07
The extrapolation of my experience says that the VERY skill heavy teams like norse and amazons can be somewhat competitive at around 1600-1800, but anything above will probably better spent on inducements. If that is an indication, then i would say generally skills are better than stats except at high TV. Individual cases for key players and fitting combinations are possible exceptions.
Posted by delusional on 2016-01-10 12:36:32
I think that this is one problem with Blood bowl. +ag pretty much trumps any skill increase because while +ag may be comparable to dodge for dodging, +ag beats dodge hands down for catching and throwing. I actually think st+ beats block, getting a dice choice avoids skulls and lets you keep blocking/moving.
Investing in skills really is a diminishing investiment. The first skill you pick (usually block) is the best skill, next is the second best, 3rd and 4th are barely useful and 5th/6th are normally wasted TV.
The stats are just so much better then skills for your key players. While wressle, guard and sure hands are useful. Nothing beats a thrower who actually picks up the ball and throws.
Investing in skills really is a diminishing investiment. The first skill you pick (usually block) is the best skill, next is the second best, 3rd and 4th are barely useful and 5th/6th are normally wasted TV.
The stats are just so much better then skills for your key players. While wressle, guard and sure hands are useful. Nothing beats a thrower who actually picks up the ball and throws.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-10 12:44:53
You can't really answer the question about roll fixing without setting the context of the environment that the skills are being selected in.
Uedder, Wreckage and Bghandras have, above given a good overview of why the context is important - team racial component, match-making/league etc? And if league, format? In a resurrection league I can think of no reason certain teams would ever not take a +stat every time up to a certain point.
But then coach mentality is important - do you want to be effective immediately or potentially dominant in future? (And again here, match-making and potential opposition are required knowledge).
If I had the knowledge I could simply pick the roll, I'd take key skills early and +stats late. I think, in the Box, everyone would. Since we can't do that, I take +stats whenever I can and just deal with the consequences - with some teams/players this really isn't an issue, with others it is dooming yourself to some very lop-sided games for a while.
Btw, as and aside, your comments section often goes "off topic" because you sidearm some speculation and end with an open-ended question which either lacks context or specificity, if you have a particular area of focus, you need to be more direct in your requests, or less fussy about the answers.
Uedder, Wreckage and Bghandras have, above given a good overview of why the context is important - team racial component, match-making/league etc? And if league, format? In a resurrection league I can think of no reason certain teams would ever not take a +stat every time up to a certain point.
But then coach mentality is important - do you want to be effective immediately or potentially dominant in future? (And again here, match-making and potential opposition are required knowledge).
If I had the knowledge I could simply pick the roll, I'd take key skills early and +stats late. I think, in the Box, everyone would. Since we can't do that, I take +stats whenever I can and just deal with the consequences - with some teams/players this really isn't an issue, with others it is dooming yourself to some very lop-sided games for a while.
Btw, as and aside, your comments section often goes "off topic" because you sidearm some speculation and end with an open-ended question which either lacks context or specificity, if you have a particular area of focus, you need to be more direct in your requests, or less fussy about the answers.
Posted by delusional on 2016-01-10 15:10:47
Hmm, I really do think it's about time that STATS get included in a general upgrade path.
I.e. if no stat upgrade by skill 3, then skill 3 is a stat upgrade.
I like the randomness of bloodbowl. But I hate to retire players who just skill out.
I.e. if no stat upgrade by skill 3, then skill 3 is a stat upgrade.
I like the randomness of bloodbowl. But I hate to retire players who just skill out.
Posted by Jeffro on 2016-01-11 04:13:06
Stilton is shite. Goat cheese is better...
Now I just had an Irish Whiskey Cheddar that was top notch. It would not even let Stilton sit at the same table.
Now I just had an Irish Whiskey Cheddar that was top notch. It would not even let Stilton sit at the same table.
Posted by zakatan on 2016-01-11 06:42:43
+ST is more than a way to get 2d. It's a way to devote less resources to do the same, it's like bringing your own Guard with you everywhere you go.
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-01-11 14:41:12
It is @zak, at the cost of a whole rookie lino.