dorfeus
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 09:51 |
 
|
It's early days with season 3, but why are humans doing so well right now? |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 10:40 |
|
Humans can be an inherently low-cost team. And in a TV-matching environment it's a very good all-round strategy to be able to keep a low TV and have either:
a) a killer blitzer who mashes all the newbie teams you face;
b) a blodgy git who dances round all the newbie teams you face.
Both provides threats that a newish team hasn't yet had the time to build specific counters to.
For a single primary elite skill-up (30K), a human blitzer is already the former (MV7 Block/Tackle/Mighty Blow). For a single primary elite skill-up (30K), a human catcher is already the latter (MV8 Block/Dodge).
So not only can they do one, they can do both. And one of them has Pro for free as a Team Captain too.
That's already a decent strategy, anything on top of that is gravy. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 12:27 |
|
They're hilariously undercosted and can afford more rrs than most teams too, coz of their tv efficiency. Plus leader if they want. Plus they get team captain rrs on their rrs.
As chingis says too. 1 skill and their players are pretty much complete you can then save for ag |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 12:28 |
|
I find OWA better than Humans, by the way. Also, Humans Season 1 are a thing, Season 2+ another one.
Season 1 Humans for sure start with a nice TV efficiency and face other teams not as good, but Season 2+ Humans face teams which already developed players to counter them.
BB 2025 Humans with only 2 Blitzers (albeit with default Tackle) don't look so special to me. They have better Catchers, but previous Humans with 4 Blitzers with S access were better than this version. |
Last edited by MattDakka on May 25, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
dorfeus
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 13:00 |
|
What you say makes sense to me.
Looking at the combined statistics from the past 30 days, other results I find interesting are:
a) Snotling 55 %, they were estimated quite strong, but still
b) Wood Elf and Lizardmen are very low at 42 % win rate
Perhaps reasons for those are the same as for Humans -> Snotling team is cheap, and Woodies and Lizards are expensive? Or perhaps the latter two are suffering from all that extra Tackle we have with starting teams?
I've only played a few games with WE (and only with WE) now, and they feel OK to me. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 13:06 |
|
| dorfeus wrote: | What you say makes sense to me.
Looking at the combined statistics from the past 30 days, other results I find interesting are:
a) Snotling 55 %, they were estimated quite strong, but still
b) Wood Elf and Lizardmen are very low at 42 % win rate
Perhaps reasons for those are the same as for Humans -> Snotling team is cheap, and Woodies and Lizards are expensive? Or perhaps the latter two are suffering from all that extra Tackle we have with starting teams?
I've only played a few games with WE (and only with WE) now, and they feel OK to me. |
WE are good. But box matches on TV. So TV efficiency is a bigger deal in that environment.
The meta is also tougher on WE due to low av and the amount of orc teams there are. Mb x3 is tricky to face. Plus the extra starting tackle spread about. Lizzies are still very strong imo. Though their first 2 games can be tough at times.
I actually think snotlings are even better than that 55% win ratio, they're being dragged down by some coaches that dont know how to get the best out of them, and also you need to remove mirror matches from that win percentage as they play other snotling teams ALOT which drags their average down. Same for orcs btw. Even though they're sitting around 61% if you remove mirror matches they're at 65 % iirc which is super broken |
_________________
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 15:20 |
|
Something like 99.5% of games on fumbbl are Season 1. So that helps them a lot. Very cheap and good early. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 15:38 |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 15:58 |
|
lol I knew it was double or half 1%, couldn't remember which |
|
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 16:11 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | dorfeus wrote: | What you say makes sense to me.
Looking at the combined statistics from the past 30 days, other results I find interesting are:
a) Snotling 55 %, they were estimated quite strong, but still
b) Wood Elf and Lizardmen are very low at 42 % win rate
Perhaps reasons for those are the same as for Humans -> Snotling team is cheap, and Woodies and Lizards are expensive? Or perhaps the latter two are suffering from all that extra Tackle we have with starting teams?
I've only played a few games with WE (and only with WE) now, and they feel OK to me. |
WE are good. But box matches on TV. So TV efficiency is a bigger deal in that environment.
The meta is also tougher on WE due to low av and the amount of orc teams there are. Mb x3 is tricky to face. Plus the extra starting tackle spread about. Lizzies are still very strong imo. Though their first 2 games can be tough at times.
I actually think snotlings are even better than that 55% win ratio, they're being dragged down by some coaches that dont know how to get the best out of them, and also you need to remove mirror matches from that win percentage as they play other snotling teams ALOT which drags their average down. Same for orcs btw. Even though they're sitting around 61% if you remove mirror matches they're at 65 % iirc which is super broken |
Welfs also just have a high skill ceiling, higher than most teams.
Snots are a team that is incredibly good when you don't match on TV, to the point that I think they are a design mistake. But if they aren't getting inducements, they often just kind of suck.
Humans are incredibly TV efficient. OWA are too (though not as much as humans with 20k more on rerolls) and get most of the tools humans do, so I expect they'll just be more popular though. Humans will struggle at higher TVs, but few games are played in that range. |
|
|
Tomay
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 25, 2026 - 22:55 |
|
Everyone raved about OWA but i'd trade that dorf blitzer, runner and slayer for a human blitzer and catcher any day. Plus the dwarf lino's are slow - the block makes them good at low TV but it doesn't fit in with what the team is doing that well. |
_________________
Join now and "Create a Legend" |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2026 - 00:03 |
|
That Dwarf Blitzer and Slayer are 2 players with S access, the Dwarf Runner is not needed, the OWA Thrower is better (and has easy Leader access, making 1 rr cheap).
Humans have 3 players with S access, OWA has 4 and the average AV is higher. OWA has better TTM potential too with the Treeman (who has higher ST and AV than the Human Ogre).
The Dwarf Linemen are slow, but they have Block, AV 10+ and Defensive. For what they have to do (tanking hits, blocking back, cancelling Guards) they are fine, I think, even if slow.
OWA seems to me better than Humans. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2026 - 01:42 |
|
50k RR, Team Captain, and Human Blitzers and Catchers are better values than Dwarf Blitzers and Slayers. Economics matter. Also, Human Catchers work best in tandem. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 26, 2026 - 01:55 |
|
I wasn't making an argument over whether OWA or Humans are better, just which will be more popular, which I think easily will be OWA.
Personally, I think OWA is a bit stronger, it has more tools and options, but humans have better TV efficiency, so its going to be close either way. |
|
|
|
|
The Stunty Cup
Search
