| Poll |
| Do you de- / not activate if only 4 player draw |
| Yes |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| No |
|
89% |
[ 67 ] |
| Yes unless desperate to play |
|
6% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 75 |
|
BlackOrc
Joined: Sep 04, 2006
|
 Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 14:46 |
 
|
I just wonder if firing a normal skilled Experienced Skink if he doesn't get +MA/double skill/ +AG on 2nd skill up roll would count as minmaxing. Or is it just THE way Lizards should be developed? |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 14:53 |
|
Koadah, point taken and thank you for reacting quite positively. |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 15:06 |
|
BlackOrc
So first I suspect we must define minmaxing. I am not an expert on this but I suspect something like:
Developing one's team in such a way as to maximise its effectiveness in a sense relative to a certain team value rather than to maximise its effectiveness if there were no consideration of team value either in matchmaking or, depending on one's definition, in terms of inducements.
In this sense, I suspect that most of us minmax to some extent (firing injured players, not buying cheerleaders etc). And so I believe that minmaxing is not a yes or no answer but rather a spectrum. When people refer to minmaxing they, therefore, are using it as a pejorative term applied to team management when we subjectively believe that someone is going too far. Where is too far? I think that's very hard to answer. It's probably like 'art' in that it's hard to define but when enough of society deem something to be art, it becomes art. So I'd look to the wisdom of the masses here. My suspicion is that most would not deem your example, by itself, as minmaxing. |
|
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 15:53 |
|
Agree. As I see, minmaxing (and also the more older cherrypicking) is somewhat related to predatory. None would blame a Goblin team if all skilled Goblins would be fired there except for the one which starts with +AG or lets say, MB. However, a CP which have a star ballcarrier and two star Claw-MB-(PO)-Tackle killers lurking around 1200TV where most normally developed teams are happy with some blocks and guards and a tackle, that is called minmaxing in its pejorative form.
There is another thread in the forums about why FUMBBL is not growing and among some other reasons there is the continous presence of some few cherrypickers and minmaxers who destroyed the new members' teams and enthusiasm.
For why they usually do that? For CR. As you might know I am against public CR partly because of this and I put a lot of efforts into a more professional-like rankings, the SR. I am very happy that some of you like it and put work into making a good SR instead of CR despite it is unofficial.
I did not expect any of you like to play with huge TV gaps but now that you come forward I revoke my request for the nominal TV gap cap.
PS.: Thanks for the kind words! |
_________________
  
Last edited by SzieberthAdam on %b %14, %2019 - %16:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 15:55 |
|
| BattleLore wrote: | Hmm Matt, what I really don't get is, why you haven't got at least one team with a TV of 2600 or more. You play thousends of games, yet you seem to have so much bad luck, that your players die at about TV 1800... If this stops one day, you suddenly won't have to play up so much  |
That because I use to activate 14 different teams and my thousands of games are split all over many races (I filled the Box grid with 6 races so far, without cycling my teams), also, I didn't monoactivate because I think monoactivation may create big TV gap matches, unfair in my book in a TV-matched division (big TV gaps should be in Majors only, and not in the Box, that said, a TV gap cap of 430 or 500 would allow TV gaps but it would be still better than no TV cap at all as now).
Moreover, considering how the TV is calculated, at high TV range the game is more unbalanced than at low-mid TV (due to flawed calculation of relative skills): for example, if a team is full of Tackle, the Dodge skills on the opponent team should be worth less TV than normal, and TV doesn't assess properly the hidden synergic value of stacked skills and stats, the higher the TV, the more these "TV calculation errors" will have an impact.
Also, not all teams perform well at high TV, and that means that the playable races at high TV are fewer than the playable races at low-mid TV.
My opinion is that all races (apart from the tier 3 ones) are reasonably playable until 1550-1600 TV, above than that the loss of performance of some races makes playing them less appealing.
I play Norse at high TV but I know well that they would be better at low-mid, and I could even cycle them, if I didn't care about fairness of match-up.
By the way, by refraining from monoactivation I bring racial variety to the Box and I increase the chance of fair match-ups (2 good reasons, in my opinion). |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 16:12 |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 16:27 |
|
So Matt, I thought I'd try and edit your post to try to help with why others might be frustrated with you. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's a genuine attempt to try to help. You know I am sympathetic to some of the challenges. Also I can't imagine trying to have these discussions in a language to which I am not native so props to any of you managing to express such ideas in second languages.
| MattDakka wrote: |
I believe that's because I used to activate 14 different teams and my thousands of games are split all over many races (I believe this despite the evidence to the contrary that others who have spread games over many teams and races have many high TV teams), also, I didn't monoactivate because I think monoactivation may create big TV gap matches, unfair in my book in a TV-matched division (I recognise that I am not the authority on what is fair but despite the evidence that TV gaps do not have a large impact on the result I believe big TV gaps should be in Majors only, and not in the Box, that said, a TV gap cap of 430 or 500 would allow TV gaps but it would still better suit what I think the box should be for than no TV cap at all as now).
Also, not all teams perform well at high TV, and that means that the races I choose to play consistently at high TV are fewer than the races I choose to play consistently at low-mid TV.
My opinion is that all races (apart from the tier 3 ones) are reasonably playable until 1550-1600 TV, above than that the loss of performance of some races makes playing them less appealing.
I play Norse at high TV but I know well that they would be better at low-mid, and I could even cycle them, if I didn't care about fairness of match-up.
By the way, by refraining from monoactivation I bring racial variety to the Box (but I recognise that others may not be able to play as many games as myself and so may need to monoactivate to develop teams and have fun as they choose) and I increase the chance of what I see as fair match-ups (2 good reasons, in my opinion). |
|
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 17:55 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | It looks like a 30 game then restart league. If you don't restart you're thrown to the wolves. |
To each their own. Some people would call it a challenge to keep a team running after 30 matches. A challenge that is part of the box experience and way of playing the game. |
Some of us even play Box out of spite because they said 'it' couldn't be done. WHO IS MAD NOW?!
Moi? Still? Awww, cmon guys! |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 21:32 |
|
| BlackOrc wrote: | | I just wonder if firing a normal skilled Experienced Skink if he doesn't get +MA/double skill/ +AG on 2nd skill up roll would count as minmaxing. Or is it just THE way Lizards should be developed? |
There is one important thing going on here that only gets lip service: people playing a game tend to optimize their entry to the game based on the game parameters. Min Maxing is a form of optimization around game parameters to achieve a goal - increase chance of winning by having a better team at TV parity. This was not the initial impetus for doing Min Max back in the day - the parameters of the game with CPOMB made high TV games in Box a real crapshoot for any non CPOMB team but the ripple effects still persist.
Now please indulge me on the following theory: The theory of competing rackets within a game. A racket in this case is a mode of operating or playing the game in exclusion of other modes of operating or playing the game. The most obvious example is Rock Paper Scissors where each tactic, as small as it is gives a 100% chance of beating another racket, 100% chance of losing to another racket, and 100% of tying to another racket. The game itself is guessing what the other participant will do and countering with your racket.
So in BB if we consider Min Maxing one kind of racket that possibly increases your odds of winning under certain parameters, it should follow that there are other rackets out there.
Man Max is a form of optimization for tourney play and team building since the parameters of tourney play aren't tied to TV pairing and maximizing men on the team gives more opportunity for skill rolls which benefits adaptability and baseline utility, attrition absorption and attrition dealing which is its own form of curtailing attrition.
So why exactly are people mad about big TV gaps with their Min-Max team? Because the entire impetus for building a team that way is obliterated by an infrequent possibility that the parameters of a game won't be based on TV parity where they enjoy a perceived advantage over their opponent.
Let's tie this back to "How Lizards are to be built" Over time, the consensus seems to be that great skinks are the only skinks that are worth pursuing. Lizards have seemingly been optimized in build to disallow weak skinks that don't carry their utility relative to TV. We could break this down in a logical manner or simply look at how most of the population of coaches build their skinks - regardless that's the meta of Lizards at the moment.
So is Min Max dirty and wrong even when it isn't intentional but an accepted optimization of a specific player type on a specific team? No, but I'll go a step further and say Min Max, even when perfectly executed by a coach is actually totally legit and fine...as long as we are spared infantile tirades about fairness that inherently preclude Min Maxed from ever facing something that doesn't benefit them.
In fact, my desire and action to go Man Max was in opposition to Min Max as an ideal way to play the game and to spitefully suggest it wasn't the only or best way to play the game across a spectrum of scenarios. And also to just rudely crap on Min Maxers by robbing them of a TV Parity advantage. When you're down 800 TV it doesn't matter how tightly built your team is, you will still lack an absolutely level of utility that might be needed to effectively play against the larger team and inducements are little help. That's your problem to solve as a Min Max coach, not mine to avoid as a coach doing my own thing.
To that end, a perfectly Min Maxed team is still beholden to the prowess of the coach controlling them. There seems to be an erroneous belief that simply by being a practitioner of Min Max you'll enjoy an advantage over other coaches at TV parity. I'd argue that optimizing the team in a way that you are comfortable and familiar with is far more important.
The overall point here is that it really doesn't matter if something is or isn't Min Max, it's how the coaches leverage their own opinions and desires and idealism to build dogmatic prisons of how the game should be played. If the consensus is that non Statdub skinks are dead weight, why should we care if it's Min Max or not? The overall objective should be figuring out how to use those types of players best and then cultivating them on your team and eliminating them from the other's team. |
Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %14, %2019 - %23:%Feb; edited 3 times in total |
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 22:21 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Christer wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | It looks like a 30 game then restart league. If you don't restart you're thrown to the wolves. |
To each their own. Some people would call it a challenge to keep a team running after 30 matches. A challenge that is part of the box experience and way of playing the game. |
Some of us even play Box out of spite because they said 'it' couldn't be done. WHO IS MAD NOW?!
Moi? Still? Awww, cmon guys! |
Go on Ahab1212, hunt for those white whalelfs! |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2019 - 23:09 |
|
| Harad wrote: | BlackOrc
So first I suspect we must define minmaxing. I am not an expert on this but I suspect something like:
Developing one's team in such a way as to maximise its effectiveness in a sense relative to a certain team value rather than to maximise its effectiveness if there were no consideration of team value either in matchmaking or, depending on one's definition, in terms of inducements.
In this sense, I suspect that most of us minmax to some extent (firing injured players, not buying cheerleaders etc). And so I believe that minmaxing is not a yes or no answer but rather a spectrum. When people refer to minmaxing they, therefore, are using it as a pejorative term applied to team management when we subjectively believe that someone is going too far. Where is too far? I think that's very hard to answer. It's probably like 'art' in that it's hard to define but when enough of society deem something to be art, it becomes art. So I'd look to the wisdom of the masses here. My suspicion is that most would not deem your example, by itself, as minmaxing. |
I like this definition but want to dig a little deeper into the origin of Min Max conceptually as it relates to BB - Maximizing Utility while Minimizing Nominal Team Value.
The gripe that most people have with Min Max teams is mostly a vestige from the CRP days where a relatively young team at around 1200 TV +-100 would be paired against a much longer lived team so that the composition of TV on the Min Max team was collected into a few key players who could attempt to win the game through attrition. Basically betting they can depitch 4/11 players before they need to utilize a 2nd reroll.
For most, Min Max under those conditions seemed especially egregious because there were perilous few ways to fight back against it as a young team with only 100k in inducements at most and there was the very real chance your team would be set back to the point of not being worth continuing with the additional factor that you know you'd run into the same situation in about 30 games.
This is not at all similar to large TV gaps happening - not in frequency, not in team survival, not in ways to attempt to fight back.
Rinse and Repeat (another racket) was at least partially inspired by the existence of Min Max teams hovering at that low TV but benefited from the parameters of the scheduler putting a small damper on the possibility of those matches being made. I say partially because there is no discounting that some coaches simply like to run the gamut with a team for a short amount of games and start all over again, apathetic towards Min Max at all.
Min Max itself was a reaction for ~2000 TV Killer CPOMB teams that they deftly avoided by virtue of the scheduler finding closer TV pairing and them meticulously keeping their team at that spot.
At this point, the pejorative connotations of Min Max really come directly from the Min Maxers themselves. The environment has changed enough to the point that anyone who purposefully and meticulously curates their TV and skill selection and then complains about getting exposed by the scheduler is baring their own ass to FUMBBL, intimating they are incapable of adjusting to change and thus require environmental changes to suit themselves primarily.
To wit, it shouldn't surprise anyone that those who never approached the game with such a dogmatic fine tooth comb and thrived anyway are telling the notorious Min Maxers to get over themselves and learn to play. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2019 - 07:10 |
|
Actually min-maxing does matter; in my opinion a lot. It is a fairly new term, but Blood Bowl has had it since handicapping was added. Just not anywhere near the level since the online sites moved over to the rules optimized (in my opinion) to resurrection.
Why does it matter? With Min-maxing you are artificially limiting your teams growth. If it were a real sport this would never happen. So with Min-maxing you are affecting the emersive factor of the game. However the more you get into the game the more you see the necessity to min-max and less of a hurdle it seems. To a new player it maybe very unappealing however; as you dream of building giants. For me (and my views are at one extreme) the difference from lrb4 and now is a major factor.
What is min-maxing? I agree with harad mostly. For me the term min-maxing gets bent to suit the community. Min-maxing's real meaning is limiting your team's power potential due to them being more effective at a lower power due to handicapping and expenses. The reality is everybody does this. It isnt even metagaming.
So the term in the Blood Bowl community is a little warped to "what is acceptable TV management". For that everybody has their own view, but with the vast amount of experience gained from playing the game most players will have similar notions on what they consider min-maxing to be.
The thing that frustrates me is that there is a variety of different Blood Bowl environments using the same out of game rules, e.g. handicapping. The differences between the ranked environment and resurrection environment are huge, yet they're handicapped exactly the same, which limits both formats. Why are long running league teams handicapped by TV when one team is top of the division on max points and one at the bottom on zero points. Is it fair in this case to give the top team even more of an advantage through inducements? How often do coaches getting destroyed in a league lose interest and fail to complete their games? With a league you can see this and the problems a bit easier than in ranked and box, yet the same problems do exist. I really wish environments had bespoke handicapping. It would improve everything. The problem is it complicates the game far beyond what is acceptable. Being uniform is something the game is striving to achieve.
The other point of frustration is that each environment has a major pulling point, but with a major drawback.
RANKED
Pro - being able to choose your matches and alienate BS teams.
Con - play in a way that isnt balanced. Be that coach or team level.
BOX
Pro - play the game as intended. No avoiding match ups or picking preferable opponents.
Con - not being able to avoid games or teams that are unfair.
LEAGUE
Pro - a controlled schedule, balanced with divisions.
Con - being committed to completing a season.
I feel the perfect environment would be an amalgamation of the 3 (with a bespoke handicapping system). That takes the positive aspect of the division and removes the negative one. |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2019 - 11:25 |
|
Everybody itk knows that minmaxing is what (the irony) smallman excelled at; having a legend killer player and firing almost all other players when they skill, minimal rerolls, only goal is to use that legendary killer to wipe out teams who were often new.
It's not a spectrum. It's not firing 1 player just to keep your team at a mid-TV bracket or cutting dead weight. It's squeezing your team down to 1000TV to create games in which you have a near insurmountable advantage short of lightening luck like a successful early no-assist foul.
How many players left the site because of smallman? The balls on the guy to ever try to claim something was unfair against him when he preyed on the fringes of the rules day after day. It was pretty pathetic, a sad pasttime of a man with obvious RL issues who needed validating by relentlessly picking on weak opponents.
Now he can't do it. The scheduler had to be changed because of the likes of him, and now he wants protecting.
F him. F his teams. F even giving him the time of day.
Maybe one should not judge the message by the messenger, but in this case I don't think we should give a hoot. You lot are being way too kind to the request of a predator. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
bancobat
Joined: Aug 25, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2019 - 11:47 |
|
100% with chainsaw
The ultra min max, the use of the bankroll when rules changed...
I will not change a pixel for smallman |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2019 - 13:13 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Maybe one should not judge the message by the messenger. |
I think important to highlight this message. Do not make it personal, do not make it a revenge. I think the request has some merit, even if i do not agree with it. And sure, the irony of that is not lost on me. Still, do not judge as you will be judged. (And i admit failing at that standard myself, yet i find it important.) |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
