Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 19:46 |
|
DukeTyrion wrote: |
But in ranked, you can choose to avoid them.
|
In theory yes, but it is soooooo hard to get a game in ranked these days that you just have to take whatever min max rubbish you get a lot of the time. |
_________________
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 19:47 |
|
Beerox wrote: | Depressing read.
This is prevalent in every fumbbl division. Gimmicky [L]eagues and all-regen teams are pretty much my last retreat, as I don't enjoy making teams like this or playing against them without regen. |
There are hardly any teams like this running around stunty. Some high av teams like gnome and nurgle, but easy to click the no against them.
Ranked you can always put your team up and see what bites, not all teams are like this in ranked.
BRT isn't really doing much business as a supplier, I'm thinking about opening it's doors as an out and out league again, with open leagues that are found in chat. Teams there would definitely prevent this sort of team build.
And.........I have my doubts about how serious this topic was meant to be. |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 19:54 |
|
I think there is some persisting confusion about what is "best". If your goal is to improve your game and/or to win as much as possible, then these min/maxed bash squads are not really the way to do it, unless you are cheesing zons at low TV, or really sniping undeveloped teams - then you can do this and win a very high percentage of games.
The real "advantage" of these teams is to narrow the amount of skill that can take part in the game and move it into more of a good dice => win, bad dice => loss area. It doesn't matter who you face with one of these teams, you have a chance to win against them using one simple tactic, so you are going to win some of those games against coaches might otherwise trash you a higher percentage of the time in a "fair fight". And if you're playing someone worse than you are, it's going to give you a good chance of beating them too. But are you winning more than 60-65% of games doing this at higher TV? Wouldn't you be winning that many games playing wood elves? Maybe a very few people are having better results, but I would wager that those people could do that with other teams as well.
If you really want a high win percentage, play the best races and strive to learn from your mistakes. People are using this strategy because it is easy to do fairly well. If all you want is a C+ or a B to pass the class then go for it. If you're looking for an A, then you're going to have a much easier time with wood elves. |
|
|
Beerox
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 20:03 |
|
Stunty or not, pitch removals are often the name of the game. Not much different from my experience. I suppose I'm talking about the way the game goes and not 11-man teams though.
But how does one build GS(M) access players in stunty? Let me count the ways...
Block
Tackle
Mighty Blow
Claw
Horns
(may need some doubles - Block Tackle MB will do)
or you could go
Tackle
Block
Mighty Blow
Piling On
Frenzy
if you are looking for something different :/
With just G access you go
Block
Tackle
MB (double)
or
Tackle
Block
MB (double)
anyhoo |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 20:11 |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
It's the flat price of skills. For team development to rule once again, 3 skills on 3 players has to be cheaper than 3 skills on 1 player. |
_________________ Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 20:20 |
|
See, I think the 11-man minmax team is just too much crapshoot. A bad first couple turns can give you total fits. I don't pick away from those teams any more than I pick on them. "Ugh, lots of POMB. Ooh, no bench!" You know how to deal with benchless POMB? Carry a man on the bench and take out two of his before he gets three of yours. Then he won't POMB so much.
As it happens, the answer to that game includes fighting fire with fire, so most smart coaches... carry a POMBer. This is not about TV minmaxing, it's simply one more arrow in the quiver. Paper-Scissors-Rock maintains itself at low-mid TV no problem. |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 20:24 |
|
yeah, but it is a crapshoot that improves your chances of winning on average.
so, as a one off game strategy, its a crapshoot
over the space of 20 games, it is a winning strategy
unless yr a noob. or smallman. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 20:54 |
|
JackassRampant wrote: |
As it happens, the answer to that game includes fighting fire with fire, so most smart coaches... carry a POMBer. This is not about TV minmaxing, it's simply one more arrow in the quiver. Paper-Scissors-Rock maintains itself at low-mid TV no problem. |
But if you're going to have a POMBer you may as well go the whole hog and have a CPOMBer. |
_________________
New teams. Secret League or Official. ALWAYS recruiting! |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 21:04 |
|
Why? No teams with C-POMB lack for AV8 (or less) targets. Tackle + MB is at least as good an investment as Claw + MB, and if that doesn't hold when you add PO it's only barely. |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 21:28 |
|
JackassRampant wrote: | Why? No teams with C-POMB lack for AV8 (or less) targets. Tackle + MB is at least as good an investment as Claw + MB, and if that doesn't hold when you add PO it's only barely. |
sorry but that's just a load of balls. |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 21:51 |
|
ClawPOMB > TPOMB because of AV9 teams and because of spam value. TPOMB doesn't carry much spam value: six is only marginally better than two. CPOMB does carry such spam value, and what's worse, at the TV at which you can spam it it's supremely good against the teams that migrate to that value. As a one-off, as at mid-level TV, it's a little better for dealing damage and a little worse for stuffing carriers. My point on POMB is that non-Claw teams can play that game too (and with less effort), not that it's not better with Claw.
The problem with ClawPOMB isn't that it's over-powered. It's that 1) it's very good and specifically tailored against the mix of opposition it tends to meet in open perpetual environments, and 2) it's friendly to low-skill coaches but unfriendly to new teams (and hence new coaches, really only benefits the ones who have given up on the game). These are two critical design errors: the first one renders non-viable two of the most traditional rosters (absolute no-no in fantasy game design), while the second punishes both stalwarts and new blood in favor of the coaches with no sense of community (okay in some game design, but problematic in progression gaming). |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 22:35 |
|
JackassRampant wrote: | ClawPOMB > TPOMB because of AV9 teams and because of spam value. TPOMB doesn't carry much spam value: six is only marginally better than two. CPOMB does carry such spam value, and what's worse, at the TV at which you can spam it it's supremely good against the teams that migrate to that value. As a one-off, as at mid-level TV, it's a little better for dealing damage and a little worse for stuffing carriers. My point on POMB is that non-Claw teams can play that game too (and with less effort), not that it's not better with Claw. |
From a box point of view CPOMB kicks TPOMB's ass. OnE TPOMB is often enough if you look after him. Two to be sure. But then, a CPOMBer can take tackle too.
There is no point saying that you play that game too if it is going to get you killed.
JackassRampant wrote: |
The problem with ClawPOMB isn't that it's over-powered. It's that 1) it's very good and specifically tailored against the mix of opposition it tends to meet in open perpetual environments, and 2) it's friendly to low-skill coaches but unfriendly to new teams (and hence new coaches, really only benefits the ones who have given up on the game). These are two critical design errors: the first one renders non-viable two of the most traditional rosters (absolute no-no in fantasy game design), while the second punishes both stalwarts and new blood in favor of the coaches with no sense of community (okay in some game design, but problematic in progression gaming). |
The designers probably don't consider those 'errors'.
They didn't target these kind of leagues and these kind of leagues didn't offer them any data. |
_________________
New teams. Secret League or Official. ALWAYS recruiting! |
|
The_Provocateur
Joined: Sep 29, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 22:52 |
|
Since we all know Min/Maxed, Low TV Clawpomb are hated, What is the general consensus on Min/Maxed, Low TV vampires? |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
  Posted:
Sep 11, 2013 - 23:18 |
|
The_Provocateur wrote: | Since we all know Min/Maxed, Low TV Clawpomb are hated, What is the general consensus on Min/Maxed, Low TV vampires? |
They suck. |
|
|
|