Posted by huff on 2013-04-08 00:57:41

i cant afford a bench with my norse, they keep dying. its a luxury i dont get to experience. Nurgle get plenty money so a have a bench with them though.

If they are minmaxing, maybe they suppose the other team doesnt have the fire-power to hit back at such a low TV, or if they do hit back they can hit harder.

Posted by Topper on 2013-04-08 01:09:30

It´s people who don´t min/max but min/med(ium) it ;)

Posted by Synn on 2013-04-08 01:09:36

I can understand that.

But I am more interested in the times people have over 500k in the bank :)

Posted by neoliminal on 2013-04-08 01:22:43

Journeymen cost nothing. Let the team die, hurt your opponent first. Ideally you are setting up for two kicks and one reception. One of the kicks will be a single turn. Why pack the bench for that? Get them before they get you and during the drive they can't being in fresh guys. Hurt them enough on the next drive they are down players even if they had 16.

Posted by pythrr on 2013-04-08 01:25:57

neo - yr plan works great IF you win the toss.

and this is the big problem. the current rules (and the way teams have reacted to them) means that in many games winning the toss = winning the game.

And this is VERY DULL

Posted by Nelphine on 2013-04-08 01:44:05

eh, extra players tend not to make that much difference. either your bash is on, and you are outnumbering your opponent, or its not. extra players just means you can foul more often, but without dirty player, it doesn't make that much difference.

the exception is in majors or other similar where you play against people who are actively trying to win despite the cas you cause, and so aren't playing a defensive conservative game; in those games, the extra bodies are always helpful.

Posted by Overhamsteren on 2013-04-08 01:59:30

If you can stay really low, I guess under 1300k TV or some such, then the answer is 'because it works'.

On bigger killer teams I guess the answer is 'DEERP I win more with this team than I've ever done before'.

Posted by huff on 2013-04-08 02:01:15

I think receiving and normally winning has something todo with the lack of a bench.

Posted by Jeffro on 2013-04-08 02:45:34

Has a team with 11 players (even none of them journeymen, but regardless) ever won a major tourney?!? I know there's loads of teams that haven't won majors, but I'm just trying to see another angle in favor of your argument.

Posted by keggiemckill on 2013-04-08 02:47:41

I've started winning more games than ever around TV180+. I usually have several guys on the bench because if I lose the toss, I still have players to refresh my supplies. The number game (attrition) no longer becomes a factor. If you get up a player or 2 vs a guy who only has 11, your odds of continuing the bash increase. As long as your linemen who sit on the bench are cheap. Not a perfect science of course.

Posted by Arktoris on 2013-04-08 03:21:46

I thinks it's about spiralling expenses. a few extra players will cost you 100ks over time.

Posted by Hitonagashi on 2013-04-08 04:22:07

Jeffro, I think Jock and his ESB won a major with 11 players by the time they hit the final. Was the LC, and they entered the group stages with 11, and afaik never got the cash to get back up to 12. Then again, a team with multiple stat freak blodging elves doesn't really count as 11...

Synn, I think it comes down to what I always say, min-maxing isn't about winning in the vast majority of cases, it's about skilling players and getting juicy legends. The cherrypickers used to live in R, now they live in B. When you think that the incentive is changed from "win" to "maybe win and avoid facing anyone that can kill my precious pixels", then that probably explains it.

Posted by Gromrilram on 2013-04-08 05:05:35

An extra player or two should in your example weigh 40k/80k

In other words, your opponent has on average 2/4 more skills.

So basically that means: 1 ClawPOMBer, or 1/2 more POMB players in the case of Norse and Khemri. The advantage of having more players is gone fast if you see the cas AND ko potential of those guys - you can win the numbers game even if you kick in first half, as ong as you keep your own bashy players on the pitch, it wont be 11 vs 9, itll turn into 8 vs 6 instead, but I believe that is where the difference is in.

And Hitonagashi: As much as I agree that min/maxing is a form of picking, I dont think it comes along with pixelhugging: especially at TV 1200 you can get cuddled up the bum pretty hard.

Posted by pythrr on 2013-04-08 05:54:37

yar, but the players you care about - ie: you one legend protected by walls of noobies - are unlikely to be bumcuddled.

Posted by licker on 2013-04-08 06:23:56

In a league or for a tourny I would imagine most teams do take a bench, because the extra TV is usually made up in inducements rather than skills. And <150k in inducements usually doesn't have a gigantic impact on a game.

In R and B...

Well there the bigger problem is that due to the way games are selected TV matching is used, so your extra TV typically does mean extra skills for the opponent, and sadly, given the state of a lot of teams, those skills are CPOMB.

Also, because most people probably realize that R and B games don't really matter, they play a different style than they might for games which do 'matter'.

Pixel huggers and those who just want to hear the 'snap' sound effect are most affected by this.

Posted by pythrr on 2013-04-08 08:09:56

this is another reason why L is win

Posted by koadah on 2013-04-08 08:31:32

Norse? What Norse?

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/sprint.html?sprintId=69&raceId=11

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/sprint.html?sprintId=70&raceId=11

Not a whole lot of khems either

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/sprint.html?sprintId=69

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/sprint.html?sprintId=70

Posted by Roland on 2013-04-08 11:49:12

fewer players also mean faster skillup (fewer players to give mvp to)

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2013-04-08 15:52:04

and once again, like always...koadah completely misses the point...

or intentionally ignores it...your choice...

Posted by koadah on 2013-04-08 16:14:09

Once again Shadow plays the arse just because he can.

Posted by licker on 2013-04-08 16:48:54

Careful gents... as I was recently reminded, Blogs are not the place for these types of shenanigans ;)

"fewer players also mean faster skillup (fewer players to give mvp to)"

The flip side to this is that teams which use journymen, and or which are really min/maxing either don't want the MVP to land on a jman, or don't want the MVP to land on anyone :p

If you're team building for some larger goal then sure, fewer players means a greater concentration of MVPs. Still if you're 'only' team building then you might as well pass every turn and generally just play for spp rather than to win.

Posted by blader4411 on 2013-04-08 18:52:00

Min/Maxing = wins. Nobody is going to win a major with a Min/Max team but assuming the team is meant for a perpetual league without an end-goal, it becomes a good/easy way to rack up wins.

Posted by the_Sage on 2013-04-08 21:28:59

My WO run was also with 11 players on almost every game. But that's elves and not voluntarily either.