FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

zakatan

Joined: May 17, 2008

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 13:57

Stalling was pervasive under LRB4 too, at least in FUMBBL.

_________________

ArrestedDevelopment

Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 14:13

I never said it wasn't, I just said there remained large groups of players who didn't. I mean, I even said it's the eradication of the "first to three" and the introduction of the turn limitation that enables stalling and that pre-dates lrb4 (it emerges in 3rd ed).

The key point in my post is that pre-CRP, "playing to win" (by any means) was not the de facto "correct" way to play BB. Despite the fact that it may be what everyone here at the time did anyway. And even if White Dwarf did have an award for coaches who bent the rules backwards (but technically still followed them) in an effort to win by any cost in previous rulesets... Wink

_________________

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:06

Stalling is harder these days than it was in LRB4. Because in LRB4 star players were very expensive. A leaping sacker or a one turn scorer was basically only possible to maintain in the 2000 TR+ area.

Aside from other strategies these two are skill intense and render stalling particularly ineffective.

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:16

Not all teams have leaping sackers or one turn scorers, though.
The cards and the scatter Wizard should make stalling until turn 8 more risky.

Zhems

Joined: Jun 25, 2017

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:23

Now looks like a good opportunity to lay out my stall again, with a bit more clarity and understanding (and a lot less rage)

If I could go back and change the name of this thread I would make it "Is stalling normal here?" But I was smarting after another bad experience and didn't know thats what the tactic was called.
Now I understand, and agree, that certain slow teams need to pace themselves. Dwarves etc creeping along at 3 paces a turn so they can score in turn 8 is good sense but I would call that Pacing/managing the game, not stalling. For myself, and others, stalling is getting the ball carrier to the touchline while the rest of both teams are in center field or a similar situation where there is no reasonable chance of the carrier being sacked; and then rather than TD they re-position/block/foul their opponent for as long as possible.
I wanted to find people who have the same ethos, the same view of the 'spirit of the game' as myself. People i would feel comfortable playing against.

Now I know that stalling is not just considered as a viable tactic by the community, but is seen as essential for good play. Question answered.

But what this thread has made me aware of is the culture of this site; that it is very competitive and that not being competitive seems to be seen as a failing or something that needs fixing.
I expect that many will disagree with that but consider; I'm not trying to pursuade the community to stop stalling but the community is trying mighty hard to get me to accept it, either by doing it myself or learning to counter it.

Please don't misunderstand me; I am not saying competitive play is wrong, its just at the opposite end of the spectrum to fast and loose casual play. Which leads me to...

Espionage wrote:

If you are aware it's the winning tactic with many races, and you are playing those races, and you don't want to stall, what part of the game do you find fun? Because if your not trying to win, then the score is meaningless, isn't it?

My answer to that is yes, it is meaningless to me. The score is there to, well, keep score. It doesn't relate to how well I played or how much fun I had. Weather its 40K, Bloodbowl, Boltaction, or Monopoly I judge my fun on laughter and smiles not TD's and kills.
I don't really expect to win when I play. Doesn't mean I don't plan to win, or keep trying in the face of adversity. But winning isn't that important.
The process is more important than the result.

Zhems

Joined: Jun 25, 2017

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:28

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

Zhems, I posted earlier in the thread, but since I'm going to refer back to that post, I'll quote the relevant part here:

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

It depends what you mean by spirit of the game. Scoring fast was something you did when the rules were "first to three scores wins", but they've not been that way for over 20 years.

I mentioned this because from your first post, I got the feeling you were probably an older player (the "spirit of the game" bit mostly), and your later post about TT play and Jervis pretty much confirmed that.

I remember playing 2nd ed rules and lrb4 fondly (sort of missed 3rd ed, only played a few games with those bloodbath rules, Sad

).

In 2nd ed of course, stalling simply didn't exist, everyone could move their full movement and then block every turn (no blitzes) and if you didn't throw a block you could sprint. The game operated on a "first to three scores" objective, and there were a number of random chances and events that would have ended 90% of modern stalling attempts. Even undead had ag3 catchers etc, as well as being able to turn most teams into paste. On top of all that, games already took 3-4hrs in most cases and anyone attempting to increase that time (by delaying how quickly someone got to 3) would've been summarily ejected from gaming groups.

By lrb4, the rules had evolved somewhat, and we had the concept of drives and a hard "turn limit". Stalling was now a tactic that was seen, and not liked by all, since it essentially was something that had grown into the game with the appearance of the turn limit. Not everyone stalled of course, but those that did tended to win more. In lrb4, the ruleset still supported a non-stalling coach in some ways with stand firm allowing even bash teams to threaten cages with dodges and the old dirty player/fouling rules (not to mention RSC/C) turning some stalls into "game winning but team ending" situations. As such there was still a large group of players out there who would simply score when available and trust their defence to win the game.

Now I'm sure you know all that, so why the history lesson? Because CRP. CRP (the Competition Rules Pack) was, as its name suggests, created with competitiveness in mind. Jervis was of course consulted during the process, and so can be assumed to have been on board with most, if not all of the changes (he certainly vetoed a few that didn't make it in). No matter what you make of CRP, in favour or not, it's undeniable that it changed massively the way people approached the game, by toning down a lot of the "zany" things one could do with a team and encouraging a systematic and methodical approach to Blood Bowl, both on-field and off.

The "spirit of the game" in 2nd ed was clearly just sitting down and having fun with your mates (in fact, I'd argue it was about murdering their entire team before they got their third score, but that's neither here nor there). But by CRP, the game is streamlined into a hardline "play to win" motivation - amongst other things, no longer is a team down 100+ TS/TV simply fodder for SPP gain, handicaps/inducements aren't a joke, and the changes in skill costing means they might even be better anyway. This isn't by accident, the BBRC wanted a situation where underdogs could have about a 30% chance to win in almost any game. Why? Because they made the game all about winning and optimisation towards that goal, not "having fun". The name even says it all.

Now BB2016 has re-introduced some of the zanier aspects that have been getting cut out of Blood Bowl over the years (non-optional cards, an inaccurate wizard etc), so we may yet return to a middle ground.
But when you play online, you're mostly playing vs people who've had to adjust to CRP or have only ever known CRP (or who played lrb4 "competitively" anyway), and as such they are playing absolutely to the "spirit of the game" when they stall... because that's what CRP instilled.

Anyway, apologies for the long post and a belated welcome to fumbbl.

Much appreciated.

Zhems

Joined: Jun 25, 2017

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:42

mister__joshua wrote:

The truth is that the large majority of coaches come to FUMBBL thinking they're better than they are. This isn't a slight, it's just true.

(I disagree. I know i'm an average player)

It's because until you've been tested against a larger and better quality field of opponents you don't really have any idea how good you really are.

So choosing not to use a tactic, one that isn't hard to implement, make me a lower quality player? Competitive play isn't better than non competitive play. It's like saying green is better than blue.

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 15:50

Zhems wrote:

So choosing not to use a tactic, one that isn't hard to implement, make me a lower quality player? Competitive play isn't better than non competitive play. It's like saying green is better than blue.

Could you prove by stalling yourself vs good coaches that it is not a tactic hard to implement?

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:05

Zhems wrote:

mister__joshua wrote:

The truth is that the large majority of coaches come to FUMBBL thinking they're better than they are. This isn't a slight, it's just true.

(I disagree. I know i'm an average player)

It's because until you've been tested against a larger and better quality field of opponents you don't really have any idea how good you really are.

So choosing not to use a tactic, one that isn't hard to implement, make me a lower quality player? Competitive play isn't better than non competitive play. It's like saying green is better than blue.

Stalling is not hard if you do not try to prevent it.

If you plan for the stall then it generally won't last long. The opponent will take the TD rather than risk you stealing the ball back.

In your last game you did nothing to prevent or shorten the stall.

You made some poor moves that lead to you getting turned over. You then sent players AWAY from the ball so that you could go for the "all or nothing" recover/pass play. It failed.
You then did not bring your players back after the ball. Had you pressured the ball you may have been able to at least force the opponent to score while there was still time for you to reply.

Because you left most of your players way down field scratching their behinds, your opponent was able to stall and foul to his hearts content.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW!

Verminardo

Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:20

Your assessment that the site is very competitive is certainly true. We have tourneys and trophies and rankings and you certainly get recognition here for being successful in those.

However, if you think that people are reacting strongly to you because you do not want to play competitively, you could not be more wrong. There are a number of Fumbblers who are not successful in competitive play and yet very popular and highly recognised, for example The_Great_Gobbo and akaRenton with their hilarious motto teams (Rabe would have been mentioned here, too, but he won a Major recently so he doesn't count any more), PainState with his alternate persona Milford, the Fumbbl tourney reporter, who runs great commentary and pickers' challenges on the Major tournaments, or people like Dalfort who played 3500 games here with a win rate of 28 % and everybody knows he's a really great chap and valuable part of the community.

As many others in this thread have pointed out (without being cast in the role of pythrr, grumble), people are reacting strongly not to your way of playing, but to your criticism of theirs. If some have made the assumption that you would like to improve your skill as a competitive player, that's not because they think anyone who doesn't want to improve is a bad person, but because from personal experience they think that you will enjoy the site more if you play better.

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:24

Stalling is just an excuse to start gangfouling! Don't get mad, get bloody!

_________________

DLE College 7s

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:27

The TAOUCH says that your "fast and loose" style won't win you many games in Ranked or Box. (The "competitive" divisions).

Fumbbl coaches generally play it a lot tighter than that.

You started that first game with an unnecessary pass as your first action. That could easily have been game over right there. Against a lot of coaches you might not have got the ball back until turn 16.
You then risked probably your best player on an AG3 dodge into TWO tackle zones, when you failed to push away the stand firm flesh golem. Early in the turn too. That set up the turnover. Then you needed to rush back after the ball but you didn't.

If that is how you want to play, you need to create the "Fast and Loose League". Ideally with bonus prizes for whoever plays the loosest. Mr. Green

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW!

Zhems

Joined: Jun 25, 2017

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:32

koadah wrote:

Zhems wrote:

mister__joshua wrote:

The truth is that the large majority of coaches come to FUMBBL thinking they're better than they are. This isn't a slight, it's just true.

(I disagree. I know i'm an average player)

It's because until you've been tested against a larger and better quality field of opponents you don't really have any idea how good you really are.

So choosing not to use a tactic, one that isn't hard to implement, make me a lower quality player? Competitive play isn't better than non competitive play. It's like saying green is better than blue.

Stalling is not hard if you do not try to prevent it.

If you plan for the stall then it generally won't last long. The opponent will take the TD rather than risk you stealing the ball back.

In your last game you did nothing to prevent or shorten the stall.

You made some poor moves that lead to you getting turned over. You then sent players AWAY from the ball so that you could go for the "all or nothing" recover/pass play. It failed.
You then did not bring your players back after the ball. Had you pressured the ball you may have been able to at least force the opponent to score while there was still time for you to reply.

Because you left most of your players way down field scratching their behinds, your opponent was able to stall and foul to his hearts content.

Perhaps if you considered that all the games I have played were prior to my post and my new understanding of the gaming culture you could see i was not expecting to get stalled. I know better now.
I moved the players the way I did hoping that spoboyle would take the hint and TD. Again, not understanding the culture.

As to stalling being straight forward to implement, I stand by my words. Keeping a stall going! That, I agree, is the rub.

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:36

Whether you do time management from the line of scrimmage or from the endzone doesn't really make a difference.

Thing is, in the rare cases where a stall is actually unstoppable (and not fun anymore), it helps to finish the game quickly because both sides basically just have to pass turns until the other team wins.

Zhems

Joined: Jun 25, 2017

Posted: Jun 28, 2017 - 16:42

koadah wrote:

You then risked probably your best player on an AG3 dodge into TWO tackle zones, Mr. Green

I had forgotten about that, LOL. I clicked on the wrong square. Doh!