28 coaches online • Server time: 07:22
* * * Did you know? The best rusher is debog with 8789 rushing yards.
Recent Forum Topics  Secret League Americ... | Exempt teams | Secret League Old Wo... |
2009-01-12 13:58:47
54 votes, rating 3.4
54 votes, rating 3.4
A Change of Strategy
I've just had one of my teams retired because one of their games broke the site rules. To be more specific, they played a game in Faction in which they let their opponent score more than he possibly could have done had I been more aggressive.
I am not complaining. The Admin in question was very polite and he was right, I did break the site rules, so there was no possible defence.
But what I wanted to do was talk about the problem behind this.
I play this game because I love American Football. I love the passing/catching and scoring elements and I love making daring plays that result in moments to remember.
And yes, I know it's Bloodbowl and there's killing involved as well, but as far as I'm concerned, that comes second to scoring as often as possible and winning that way.
One of my strategies was - at least against opponents who didn't stall - to score quickly on offence, protect my players on defence and then score again as quickly as possible once he'd scored. Of course, this is what got my team retired, because the best way of persuading an opponent to score quickly is to leave him open to score.
I've won many games with scores of 5-4, or 6-5 because of this strategy and I always thought it was a good way to win. I could be a generous opponent to weaker teams and not punish them too much while still having a good game. Also, more importantly, if your opponent is busy scoring, he's less likely to bother blocking your players so you can finish the match with something resembling a whole team!
But listen... THIS IS NOT ALLOWED! DO NOT TRY THIS!
Sadly, trying to win in this way is against site rules as you may not allow your opponent to score without trying to stop him.
Now, call me a sad complaining old wood elf if you like, but this seems to me to be a little harsh. I agree it can make it look like there was a pre-game arrangement in place to score lots and not bash at all, but there is always the possibility of two coaches who like this strategy meeting and playing like this without prior arrangement.
I think it's a shame that I can't be nice to an opponent while I'm playing him unless I chose to play in Academy or Unranked. I'm not a vicious person in real life, I don't want to be when I play Bloodbowl.
Yesterday my strategy didn't work. I was too nice to my opponent because I was happy for him to score 2 TDs (helps with the FF). However, at 2-2, he had a run of very good luck and made some ludicrously lucky dodges to end the half 4-2 up! So I had to spend the whole of the second half trying to catch up, and after a really exciting game which ended with me running in an interception to score on the final turn, we parted with a 5-5 draw.
Then my account was suspended and my team retired.
So now I have to start all over again and make sure I never give an opponent a break, even if he really really needs it.
I think that's a shame. This game should be about mutual enjoyment as much as winning.
But I will finish with reminding those of you still reading that I am not blaming anyone for what happened except myself. The Admin was only doing his job and I did break the site rules. I accept my punishment.
I just wanted a fumbbl grumble.
Thx for reading.
PS: After reading a few of the comments on this entry I just want to add something...
Sorry if I did not make my point clearly enough.
I DID let my opponent score unhindered at the start of the game. This is not at issue and this is the very reason I was banned. My point is that I thought it a shame I was censured for it as I thought it a valid strategy. Letting an opponent score and letting him win the match are two different things.
I am not complaining. The Admin in question was very polite and he was right, I did break the site rules, so there was no possible defence.
But what I wanted to do was talk about the problem behind this.
I play this game because I love American Football. I love the passing/catching and scoring elements and I love making daring plays that result in moments to remember.
And yes, I know it's Bloodbowl and there's killing involved as well, but as far as I'm concerned, that comes second to scoring as often as possible and winning that way.
One of my strategies was - at least against opponents who didn't stall - to score quickly on offence, protect my players on defence and then score again as quickly as possible once he'd scored. Of course, this is what got my team retired, because the best way of persuading an opponent to score quickly is to leave him open to score.
I've won many games with scores of 5-4, or 6-5 because of this strategy and I always thought it was a good way to win. I could be a generous opponent to weaker teams and not punish them too much while still having a good game. Also, more importantly, if your opponent is busy scoring, he's less likely to bother blocking your players so you can finish the match with something resembling a whole team!
But listen... THIS IS NOT ALLOWED! DO NOT TRY THIS!
Sadly, trying to win in this way is against site rules as you may not allow your opponent to score without trying to stop him.
Now, call me a sad complaining old wood elf if you like, but this seems to me to be a little harsh. I agree it can make it look like there was a pre-game arrangement in place to score lots and not bash at all, but there is always the possibility of two coaches who like this strategy meeting and playing like this without prior arrangement.
I think it's a shame that I can't be nice to an opponent while I'm playing him unless I chose to play in Academy or Unranked. I'm not a vicious person in real life, I don't want to be when I play Bloodbowl.
Yesterday my strategy didn't work. I was too nice to my opponent because I was happy for him to score 2 TDs (helps with the FF). However, at 2-2, he had a run of very good luck and made some ludicrously lucky dodges to end the half 4-2 up! So I had to spend the whole of the second half trying to catch up, and after a really exciting game which ended with me running in an interception to score on the final turn, we parted with a 5-5 draw.
Then my account was suspended and my team retired.
So now I have to start all over again and make sure I never give an opponent a break, even if he really really needs it.
I think that's a shame. This game should be about mutual enjoyment as much as winning.
But I will finish with reminding those of you still reading that I am not blaming anyone for what happened except myself. The Admin was only doing his job and I did break the site rules. I accept my punishment.
I just wanted a fumbbl grumble.
Thx for reading.
PS: After reading a few of the comments on this entry I just want to add something...
Sorry if I did not make my point clearly enough.
I DID let my opponent score unhindered at the start of the game. This is not at issue and this is the very reason I was banned. My point is that I thought it a shame I was censured for it as I thought it a valid strategy. Letting an opponent score and letting him win the match are two different things.
Comments
Posted by spelledaren on 2009-01-12 14:15:24
Well, not defending wouldn't encourage me to score, just to grind your team into the ground for 8 turns. But I guess that it often works :P
Not defending properly can be a valid tactic, but not defending at all breaks site rules I think.
Good luck with your new team.
Not defending properly can be a valid tactic, but not defending at all breaks site rules I think.
Good luck with your new team.
Posted by Melmoth on 2009-01-12 14:28:30
Well..if that leasd to team retirement: I know a certain Black Box team with a certain black Box coach...but thats another story. If your not defending at all I simply would crush your team and score in Turn 8. If you just run away its breaking the rules thats for sure. I know this is a common way to play in faction (Elfbowl!!) so I wonder that this is punished now after years of elfballing hehe...
Posted by Cloggy on 2009-01-12 14:35:38
I do think the action of the admin in question was just.
I also think that the way you explicitly state that you accept the decision is admirable. If more people had your attitude we would not have admins leaving all the time.
My compliments.
I also think that the way you explicitly state that you accept the decision is admirable. If more people had your attitude we would not have admins leaving all the time.
My compliments.
Posted by treborius on 2009-01-12 14:42:03
well, after looking at the replay of your match...
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=2501717
...it really more seems like Elfbowling than any sort of American Football match i've witnessed before ;-)
...you're starting out with 11 Woodies vs. 6 High Elf.
...in turn 3 it really becomes clear, that you're trying to optimize something else than your TD-difference - you start out your turn with Blocks and don't even try to mark the ballcarrier while you could actually 2d-Blitz him with several different players (with Block, even).
...when you're finished with regular blocks of players that are coincidentally placed in your player's tackle-zones you still don't blitz the ball-carrier and neither mark him nor his 1-man-escort, although you still had 6 unused players (!)
...those 6 players just do nothing that turn :-(
...i'd boo a bunch if i was to ever spectate a game like that in American Football ;-)
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=2501717
...it really more seems like Elfbowling than any sort of American Football match i've witnessed before ;-)
...you're starting out with 11 Woodies vs. 6 High Elf.
...in turn 3 it really becomes clear, that you're trying to optimize something else than your TD-difference - you start out your turn with Blocks and don't even try to mark the ballcarrier while you could actually 2d-Blitz him with several different players (with Block, even).
...when you're finished with regular blocks of players that are coincidentally placed in your player's tackle-zones you still don't blitz the ball-carrier and neither mark him nor his 1-man-escort, although you still had 6 unused players (!)
...those 6 players just do nothing that turn :-(
...i'd boo a bunch if i was to ever spectate a game like that in American Football ;-)
Posted by koadah on 2009-01-12 15:17:52
If it was the NFL you'd be going to jail for match fixing. :)
I am sure that some NFL teams have allowed teams into the end zone when time is short and they need time on the clock to win the game.
I've never heard them doing it all through the game though.
I am sure that some NFL teams have allowed teams into the end zone when time is short and they need time on the clock to win the game.
I've never heard them doing it all through the game though.
Posted by westerner on 2009-01-12 15:52:45
Good lesson. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by PhrollikK on 2009-01-12 17:03:25
Things brings one question to my mind: are you supposed to play in a certain way in order to be able to play on FUMBBL? Are alternative ways punished?
To me the tactic just described is very sound. Not necessarily the one I would use, but it is up to any coach to use whatever tactic fits them to achieve their end goals. Is it really such a crime to let you opponent score a TD? Cannot anyone see that it might have tactical implications, especially for a quick running team?
Also what would happen say if you let a team that needed points in Faction to score TD's simply for the fact that another team would then end up lower on the table...
Oh and lastly: Being sneaky is at the heart of Blood Bowl, whether you're a High Elf or an Orc coach. This should always go before any other rule and should imo be acclaimed.
To me the tactic just described is very sound. Not necessarily the one I would use, but it is up to any coach to use whatever tactic fits them to achieve their end goals. Is it really such a crime to let you opponent score a TD? Cannot anyone see that it might have tactical implications, especially for a quick running team?
Also what would happen say if you let a team that needed points in Faction to score TD's simply for the fact that another team would then end up lower on the table...
Oh and lastly: Being sneaky is at the heart of Blood Bowl, whether you're a High Elf or an Orc coach. This should always go before any other rule and should imo be acclaimed.
Posted by treborius on 2009-01-12 17:17:19
@PhrollikK:
there are certain rules about how you're supposed to play on fumbbl, but i'm not considering myself as one who "beats dead horses" on every rule that exists.
however, i do think the description of his game-style in Stikki's Blog doesn't fit to the actual game in question - have you looked at the replay?
he's not just letting his oppo score, but in my eyes he's having him score although he could easily prevent it and even score himself, instead (with chances much greater than 50%, look as early in the match as turn 3 ;-)
while i don't like to rule whether or not that's enough "wrong-doing" to actually retire a team with 70+ games - i don't like to read a story like this and thereafter discover that the rule-violation is actually much worse than the story suggests :-(
there are certain rules about how you're supposed to play on fumbbl, but i'm not considering myself as one who "beats dead horses" on every rule that exists.
however, i do think the description of his game-style in Stikki's Blog doesn't fit to the actual game in question - have you looked at the replay?
he's not just letting his oppo score, but in my eyes he's having him score although he could easily prevent it and even score himself, instead (with chances much greater than 50%, look as early in the match as turn 3 ;-)
while i don't like to rule whether or not that's enough "wrong-doing" to actually retire a team with 70+ games - i don't like to read a story like this and thereafter discover that the rule-violation is actually much worse than the story suggests :-(
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2009-01-12 17:32:38
11 vs 6?
There is NO reason what so ever at letting your opponent score even once. Seriously. Yes you have won games by 5-4 and 6-5... but that game should have been yours at 5-0... at least 5-0.
There is NO reason what so ever at letting your opponent score even once. Seriously. Yes you have won games by 5-4 and 6-5... but that game should have been yours at 5-0... at least 5-0.
Posted by lucky1 on 2009-01-12 18:38:03
There is NONRANKED league for plays like this
Posted by paulhicks on 2009-01-12 20:49:16
Respect to you for admiting you were in the wrong on this one. I hope you can also see why it is that it is banned as well.
It is not expected that you will always try and prevent every touchdown regardless of the risk to your team but what you did looks like a fixed match. We're all happy enough to beleive that you considered what you did to be a strategy but on the face of it it simply appeared to be a game designed to unfairly boost each team which naturaly is unfair on all other teams in the division.
Just for the record there are also instances of people getting busted for this in the supposedly "non competetive" divisions too.
It is not expected that you will always try and prevent every touchdown regardless of the risk to your team but what you did looks like a fixed match. We're all happy enough to beleive that you considered what you did to be a strategy but on the face of it it simply appeared to be a game designed to unfairly boost each team which naturaly is unfair on all other teams in the division.
Just for the record there are also instances of people getting busted for this in the supposedly "non competetive" divisions too.
Posted by celas on 2009-01-12 20:53:17
Stikki, thanks for posting the blog in such a polite manner. I doubt that you had any intention of trying to cheat or help someone else cheat; most of those people would try to cover it up.
I hope you continue to play in Faction.
I hope you continue to play in Faction.
Posted by SillySod on 2009-01-13 04:10:35
Tricky one, allowing an opponent to score a touchdown can sometimes give you an advantage if they take the opportunity. Such an action can be part of a valid tactic.
However... I'm not 100% sure that this is the case here, I havent spectated the match but (at best) it sounds like a stunningly poor choice of tactic or (at worst) a reminder of the bad old [F] match fixing. Pehaps that why its called [F], for [F]ixed :D
However... I'm not 100% sure that this is the case here, I havent spectated the match but (at best) it sounds like a stunningly poor choice of tactic or (at worst) a reminder of the bad old [F] match fixing. Pehaps that why its called [F], for [F]ixed :D
Posted by SillySod on 2009-01-13 04:21:09
Ok, after spectating the game.... yuck, you didnt even bother to move players to force a touchdown. You cant call that a strategy, even a really poor one.
Posted by Sirdave79 on 2009-07-15 13:13:36
Interesting blog indeed. You dont seem to get as much of a trashing as my blog did. Have a look if you can be bothered, Observations and evolution.
Its funny to see people making real life paralells to the game, apparently that is full of fail. On the face of it what youve written sounds plausible. I know the rules about match fixing. I spectated a game recently were one team actually passed the ball to the other after placing his beast (nurgle big guy) on the wide off the line of scrimmage and didnt move his beast into a tackle zone for more tahn a whole half. Now I suggested that something naughty was taking place to the relevant person because passing the ball to another player is a mistake that even a rookie coach would not make. Because I would suggest that anyone who has gone to the trouble to setup the client etc knows enough not to pass the ball to the opponent. Surely if this was a rookie coach then this is worse than not marking a player and "allowing" them to score. I wonder if the nurgle player got 1 spp for the completed pass ?
I think that maybe you have told your side of the story more emphatically than the opposing side. Did you really leave 6 players unmoved without marking his 2 player ball package ? Did you really not blitz his ball carrier having made 2 dice blocks that turn ? I assume so because people who have looked at the replays have said so and this is a matter of public discussion.
You having played 70 games, have got to think that not even marking his players even if u didnt actually make the blitz is going to look bad/wrong ? You have got to think that if ur not gonna blitz his ball carrier cause u want him to score and u get the kick off and not potentially lose a player getting a double skull then you shount be throwing 2 dice blocks and not blitzing the ball carrier ? Surely you could have moved ur 6 players to get some tackle zones in front of ur oppoenent so he had to dodge at least if ur not gonna block him ?
However I do think that letting an opponent score has advantages, I have thought to myself that having scored quickly in the first half it would be better for my opponent to score again that half giving me another kick off to receive and another TD attempt that half would be better. I even suggested (heavens forbid) that a tournament game should have gone differently in my blog, observations and evolution. Which i was also panned for, tho i say again how could it have gone worse for him ? he attempted to grind his opposition down using the full half and ended up coming off worse. So that for all those people who posted comments to yours saying "I ould have ground ur team into the dust". Did you read that he was playing against 6 players ?
Anyways, I think that some of what you did wass defensible, some of it not. In summary you could have maybe put on a better "show", whilst sticking to the principles of what youve outlined.
Live long and prosper!
Its funny to see people making real life paralells to the game, apparently that is full of fail. On the face of it what youve written sounds plausible. I know the rules about match fixing. I spectated a game recently were one team actually passed the ball to the other after placing his beast (nurgle big guy) on the wide off the line of scrimmage and didnt move his beast into a tackle zone for more tahn a whole half. Now I suggested that something naughty was taking place to the relevant person because passing the ball to another player is a mistake that even a rookie coach would not make. Because I would suggest that anyone who has gone to the trouble to setup the client etc knows enough not to pass the ball to the opponent. Surely if this was a rookie coach then this is worse than not marking a player and "allowing" them to score. I wonder if the nurgle player got 1 spp for the completed pass ?
I think that maybe you have told your side of the story more emphatically than the opposing side. Did you really leave 6 players unmoved without marking his 2 player ball package ? Did you really not blitz his ball carrier having made 2 dice blocks that turn ? I assume so because people who have looked at the replays have said so and this is a matter of public discussion.
You having played 70 games, have got to think that not even marking his players even if u didnt actually make the blitz is going to look bad/wrong ? You have got to think that if ur not gonna blitz his ball carrier cause u want him to score and u get the kick off and not potentially lose a player getting a double skull then you shount be throwing 2 dice blocks and not blitzing the ball carrier ? Surely you could have moved ur 6 players to get some tackle zones in front of ur oppoenent so he had to dodge at least if ur not gonna block him ?
However I do think that letting an opponent score has advantages, I have thought to myself that having scored quickly in the first half it would be better for my opponent to score again that half giving me another kick off to receive and another TD attempt that half would be better. I even suggested (heavens forbid) that a tournament game should have gone differently in my blog, observations and evolution. Which i was also panned for, tho i say again how could it have gone worse for him ? he attempted to grind his opposition down using the full half and ended up coming off worse. So that for all those people who posted comments to yours saying "I ould have ground ur team into the dust". Did you read that he was playing against 6 players ?
Anyways, I think that some of what you did wass defensible, some of it not. In summary you could have maybe put on a better "show", whilst sticking to the principles of what youve outlined.
Live long and prosper!