| Poll |
| Compared to playing with somewhat skilled up teams, playing a single new TV 1000 matchup is.... |
| Pretty much the worst test of coaching skill |
|
6% |
[ 6 ] |
| A pretty bad test of coaching skill |
|
40% |
[ 40 ] |
| A similar test of coaching skill |
|
16% |
[ 16 ] |
| A pretty good test of coaching skill |
|
16% |
[ 16 ] |
| Pretty much the best test of coaching skill |
|
5% |
[ 5 ] |
| Pie |
|
17% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 100 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:14 |
 
|
Oh, experienced BB coaches? You should have said there were boundaries on who could vote! 
I jest. I appreciate you are not determining something life and death here, and that the 'tool' might be a finger in the air, if that is all that is required. All I'm saying is that Internet polls are inherently difficult things.
And I really, really don't care that much. I don't even know why I'm down this rabbit hole. Could possibly be that it's lunchtime!  |
|
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:40 |
|
I seem to recall in a previous discussion on this subject, Tarabaralla said that he thought lower tv was less determined by luck, because with less skills and rr's available, the ability to mitigate variation was reduced, meaning that both coaches had to deal with a certain amount of unavoidable misfortune. Counterintutively perhaps, that meant bad luck was in fact less significant overall as a determiner of the game, because there was just so much of it to go around, and the coaches' skill to manage and work around it was more important.
Equally, at higher tv, where we are all so used to having virtually every risky action mitigated by free rr's (dodge, sure hands etc.) or skills that reduce the number of failure scenarios (block, accurate, etc.) that the effect of a single piece of unavoidable bad luck - skulls on dodge or GFI, for example - is actually significantly magnified.
I agree. And moreover, I think it is well-established that there are skill and stat combos in developed teams (natural one turners, clawpomb) that can create win scenarios with minimal skill.
So yes, I see starting teams as a very good determiner of skill. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:43 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
And I really, really don't care that much. I don't even know why I'm down this rabbit hole. Could possibly be that it's lunchtime! |
I am just picturing a guy going from AA meeting to AA meeting: As the meeting starts he patiently waits his turn, then stands up and speaks to the group. "I have to tell you guys, these meetings are utterly pointless. You should stop doing these kinds of things and spend your time with something more productive. I'll be sitting here for the rest of the session in case you have questions and comment on your stories how they don't matter and shouldn't matter to anyone." |
|
|
mdd31
Joined: Oct 23, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:55 |
|
I think I can answer this in a way nobody else has so far. As a very inexperienced coach and one of the worst coaches in Fumbbl I can tell you that the low TV games are MUCH easier for me. The reason is that with low TV there are fewer skills which mean fewer variables to deal with. Also lower TV completely eliminates certain teams because they don't have any ability to compete. Therefore I would say the lower the TV the lower the test of skill because there is so much less to deal with and the game is much more standard basic movements with strategy being limited by a lack of options. |
|
|
spinball
Joined: Jul 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:57 |
|
The only way to be sure would be to give all 64 coaches the same team, and play it out over and over at all different team ranks... still not great but doable. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 15:02 |
|
| mdd31 wrote: | | I think I can answer this in a way nobody else has so far. As a very inexperienced coach and one of the worst coaches in Fumbbl I can tell you that the low TV games are MUCH easier for me. The reason is that with low TV there are fewer skills which mean fewer variables to deal with. Also lower TV completely eliminates certain teams because they don't have any ability to compete. Therefore I would say the lower the TV the lower the test of skill because there is so much less to deal with and the game is much more standard basic movements with strategy being limited by a lack of options. |
This is where psychology of coach comes into effect - you're clearly going to be more at home with bash oriented teams, since you're placing the onus on creating failure for your opponent.
Another coach might simply point to the ease of movement that agility 4 creates, even without dodge rr and the better access to play a positional game without heavy attrition (due to lack of MB) as evidence that a low TV game is much more difficult. |
_________________
 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 15:21 |
|
| mdd31 wrote: | | I think I can answer this in a way nobody else has so far. As a very inexperienced coach and one of the worst coaches in Fumbbl I can tell you that the low TV games are MUCH easier for me. The reason is that with low TV there are fewer skills which mean fewer variables to deal with. Also lower TV completely eliminates certain teams because they don't have any ability to compete. Therefore I would say the lower the TV the lower the test of skill because there is so much less to deal with and the game is much more standard basic movements with strategy being limited by a lack of options. |
This is an interesting way to look at it. It might well be that your inexperience is tripping you up-off board at high TV (not on the pitch), and that’s what is leading to low TV being ‘easier’ – you’ve had less chance to put yourself at a disadvantage before a die is even rolled. ‘Coaching’ can be seen both as what you do with the bits on the field and how you build your team to begin with.
There is an argument in some TT BB areas that I hate. It goes something along the lines of ‘TV 1.1 with 6 skills is just for the powergamers. Let’s see how well they’d do with my 7 tiered, multi levelled, super-intricate 20 skill ruleset! That would really break them out of their comfort zone and give them issues!’ In actuality, they’ve got it arse about face. There are many good reasons for innovative and crazy rulesets, but making it harder for good coaches is not one of them. Everyone who has played a bit of TT BB can construct a 1.1 M 6 skill Undead roster, and they know enough to get it ‘right’ – or right enough so that it doesn’t actually make too much of a difference if there’s a bit of a wobbly skill pick here or there. Those tournaments are only decided on the pitch. If you make the rules novel and crazy, it heavily favours the better coaches. Because they’ve seen it and done it, they can squeeze the most out of the ruleset. The weaker players just have loads more room to make errors before they even start playing. That could be what it happening to you – by the time you get to higher TV levels, is your inexperience simply leading to sub-optimal team design and you’re losing way more because of it? It’s mainly a rhetorical point, I guess. Perhaps I’m off base. With a bit more experience, this becomes less of a factor (although high TV develops new issues that detract from skill, as discussed above).
KG makes a well-argued point. All I’d say is that you can push it too far. Brand new teams is too far for me – there is inherent coaching skill in using additional skills to those your new team gets, and when there is no safety net whatsoever, the bad fortune everyone suffers can just be utterly suffocating, however you interact with it. Whilst that is true of games at any TV level, it’s particularly so when you have no tools to mitigate with whatsoever, or so many tools that bad fortune is often overlooked. It doesn’t matter so much that all of my Dodges are 1s when all of my players have Dodge anyway. It’s everything when none of them do. When 2-3 have it, then we’re talking, because positioning of those players and decision making using resources comes into the equation, but does not dominate it. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 15:53 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | Oh, experienced BB coaches? You should have said there were boundaries on who could vote!
|
That's actually what I wanted to do at first; make a poll on reddit and ask only experienced coaches to respond. Then I realized I could just poll fumbbl and get a predominantly expert opinion without having to tell people 'don't click this button' (which doesn't work).  |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:19 |
|
I don't think the environment really matters much. The better coach will win more times than the worse. If there is something as a better and a worse coach.
Sure skill selection furthers the gap between expert coaches and total noobs and i think team building is a big part of blood bowl, but even at 1000 tv it's still blood bowl.
Get your players on the field and score more td than the opposition.
The rest is just chit-chat. |
|
|
Malmir
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:21 |
|
When you roll as many skull both down as I seem to when I start a new team, coaching skill feels of limited use. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:33 |
|
One of the things with low TV is you have no skills to mitigate that first failure in a turn. The safe moves can oft times be 1 move, maybe 2 depending on your opponent.
Lets say, for instance, I am using an rookie High Elf team and my opponent is using rookie Dwarfs. I receive the kick and my first die roll fails and since I am low on rerolls I opt to let it go. My opponent then marks everyone he can bringing almost my entire team into base to base contact.... So now I am forced to make quite a few rolls on my turn. First I am going to probably secure the ball and screen anyone from it that I have left. This is the turn I will burn a reroll if one of my early actions fails otherwise it could be disaster mode. If I burn a reroll and then have another action fail....this could be the game. There are just too few skills on some new teams for it to be considered a good test of ability.
Sure, if you take the same teams and play a best of 5 you might get a better idea....but then again, some coaches are better at positioning with one race over another. To me the 1400 range is pretty good because you have some skills where the key moves become much safer and are not hinging entirely on luck. Every block or dodge with a rookie line elf is a pain in the ass. |
_________________
 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:44 |
|
Yeah, this. When much of your game hinges on 1/6 instead of 1/36, the chance that a fluke result decides the game becomes a lot bigger. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:44 |
|
Also, I would like anyone with a straight face to tell me playing against Amazons with any team other than Dwarfs is a test of skill? |
_________________
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:01 |
|
The main issue with BB is that the random element of the game, the dice, has a large impact on just one match. Just like in real life sports, a one off match with everything on the line, with two teams equally matched, most of the time the game is decided on two or three "plays", a lucky break there, a crucial mistake here and a stupid ball that bounced the wrong way.
So, Blood Bowl does mirror real life sports in that way.
A team/coach performance level is tested over a period of time, looking at their W/L rates, how they finished in the standings over multiple seasons and how well they have done in post season or tournaments.
Blood Bowl is no different.
You can go into a League on FUMBBl that has been running for a long time and see who the top performing coaches/teams are in that specific league. Now, over a long time, those teams will have ups and downs, League champion two seasons and then 3 seasons just trying to get back on top. But the good coaches, over time always come out of the "funk" and guide their team once more to the top of the league.
Open play R/B tournaments are the exact same. You can look at sonrises excellent work with his Top 25 reports. It is not just the top 25 but all the teams/coaches who have played over the course of the year in tournaments. You will notice that the top coaches in R/B have success not just in one group of tournaments, like majors, but have high standings in Rookie Rumbles, Brawls and Smacks across ALL the tv ranges and perform well in the XFL tournaments.
It is not just they play in a lot of tournaments, volume players, it is also they have proven they are good coaches because they can play in every tournament format offered in R/B, with different teams at various TV levels and various races and place high in the standings, not winning the tournament all the time but they sure as heck are not "going out" early in the majority of these events either.
That to me is what defines a good coach in R/B and League play. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:45 |
|
My own experience is that my CR improves markedly when I play up in TV, and lose more often to lower-CR coaches at low TV. Anecdotally then, lower-TV games feel like they are higher-variance.
Ultimately it's probably parabolic: higher variance at the low- and high-TV ranges. Low because few teams have risk-reducing skills like Block, Dodge, and Sure Hands; high because of Tackle and (C)POMB. The exceptions to this are the usual suspects who dominate each range because of their skills: Dwarfs, Norse, Zons, Woodies at low-TV; Nurgle, Chaos at high-TV. And then there are the few with the skill access to compete at all ranges: CDorf and Skaven.
So I'd say the answer to your question is highly race-dependent. Granted it's a bit theory-bowl as I don't play most of those teams at low- or high-TV. But the most impressive coaches are those who can coax success out of practically any roster. I suppose consistent success against solid competition using low-TV Pact or Slann or Vamps or Chaos/Nurgle would be the strongest indicator of skill. However I'm not sure that's possible! |
|
|
|
|
| |
Making Assassins mor...
Search
