23 coaches online • Server time: 07:47
* * * Did you know? The most touchdowns in a single match is 23.
Recent Forum Topics  Claw/MB | 90+ Custom Rosters! | Designer's Comm... |
2013-05-20 07:45:04
12 votes, rating 3.8
12 votes, rating 3.8
Lumberjack effect
Recently there was a spec chat, where a guy claimed two things. Firstly that removing key player on T2 can't be game changing, secondly that one square position difference on T14 lost a game.
Basically this means that events in early game are less important than events in later the game. And I very strongly disagree.
Lumberjack effect:
When lumberjack swings his axe for the last time and tree falls down, is it because of the last chop? No it's not, it's the series of swings that lead to the falling of the tree. (I little like butterfly effect but more manly)
Of course there can be huge luck swings that decide the result, and render all the earlier events of the match insignificant. But those just fall under the category of "it's a crazy dice game".
It's understandable to give credit only for the most perceivable causality, but in reality the reason for result is much more complex than just one event late in the game.
Basically this means that events in early game are less important than events in later the game. And I very strongly disagree.
Lumberjack effect:
When lumberjack swings his axe for the last time and tree falls down, is it because of the last chop? No it's not, it's the series of swings that lead to the falling of the tree. (I little like butterfly effect but more manly)
Of course there can be huge luck swings that decide the result, and render all the earlier events of the match insignificant. But those just fall under the category of "it's a crazy dice game".
It's understandable to give credit only for the most perceivable causality, but in reality the reason for result is much more complex than just one event late in the game.
Comments
Posted by Wreckage on 2013-05-20 08:02:56
Losing a key player early on is obviously worse because he will be missing for longer throughout the game.
Secondly the stakes become higher throughout the game because my minor improvements won't cut it anymore if you run out of time. If you play a stalling game like most good coaches a climax towards the end is inevitable: You could have 7 easy turns but in the 8th turn where your opponent knows you will score if he doesn't stop you, he will probably try you with brute force and numbers. Small positional changes and a dice roll of a 3 instead of a 2 can decide things here indeed.
I'd say that of course the entire game is important but depending on the playstile they can indeed become more important towards the end.
Removing players works essentially the opposite way: If one side has lost most of their players by half 2, nothing really matters what is rolled or happens there then.
Secondly the stakes become higher throughout the game because my minor improvements won't cut it anymore if you run out of time. If you play a stalling game like most good coaches a climax towards the end is inevitable: You could have 7 easy turns but in the 8th turn where your opponent knows you will score if he doesn't stop you, he will probably try you with brute force and numbers. Small positional changes and a dice roll of a 3 instead of a 2 can decide things here indeed.
I'd say that of course the entire game is important but depending on the playstile they can indeed become more important towards the end.
Removing players works essentially the opposite way: If one side has lost most of their players by half 2, nothing really matters what is rolled or happens there then.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2013-05-20 09:41:03
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the game between anisdrin and Smeesh, where a T2 knock out of the ST5 freak frog lead anisdrin to comment, "That could be game right there."
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3439322
The freak frog came back for the 2nd half and anisdrin won 2-1. I think the objection among the specs (me included) was that it was only a knockout. Had it been a casualty of such a key player, then I'd have been inclined to agree with anisdrin, because his team had few other skilled players.
So I'd agree with your points, but I think the example you gave wasn't the greatest.
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3439322
The freak frog came back for the 2nd half and anisdrin won 2-1. I think the objection among the specs (me included) was that it was only a knockout. Had it been a casualty of such a key player, then I'd have been inclined to agree with anisdrin, because his team had few other skilled players.
So I'd agree with your points, but I think the example you gave wasn't the greatest.
Posted by Kelkka on 2013-05-20 09:50:18
Very good comment Wreckage about play styles. I hadn't really thought it from that point of view, and that makes sense.
When game goes bad coaches usually change they play style to adjust to events. Like retreating to prevent defender from stealing a TD, at a cost of your own TD.
This falls nicely into the idea of lumberjack effect. Each chop is significant, but at some points the cumulative amount is enough to make the tree waver and need to adjust.
When game goes bad coaches usually change they play style to adjust to events. Like retreating to prevent defender from stealing a TD, at a cost of your own TD.
This falls nicely into the idea of lumberjack effect. Each chop is significant, but at some points the cumulative amount is enough to make the tree waver and need to adjust.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2013-05-20 11:14:31
Still it would be nice for you to clarify the fact that it was a KO and not a casualty rather than the ambiguous 'removing'...
Posted by koadah on 2013-05-20 11:34:37
"That could be game right there."
Don't see what there is to object to. If the player doesn't come back then it's as good as a cas.
Don't see what there is to object to. If the player doesn't come back then it's as good as a cas.
Posted by Reisender on 2013-05-20 11:49:04
"Firstly that removing key player on T2 can't be game changing, secondly that one square position difference on T14 lost a game."
I think the difference is that you actually can trace back a square difference in turn 14 to become more or less directly game changing in turn 16, making the difference between lose or win or at least making a big difference for the odds on that last all or nothiung action (by being out of scoring distance, prvent or give an assist etc.).
While removing a key player in turn 2 surely changes the game - and often hugely, it is just harder to directly trace that back directly once youre in turn 16. (so anisdrin´s quote is quite correct, in turn 2 you shouldnt say: "that´s game", but such an event (and more a cas than ko, ofc. could be the game changer)
I think the difference is that you actually can trace back a square difference in turn 14 to become more or less directly game changing in turn 16, making the difference between lose or win or at least making a big difference for the odds on that last all or nothiung action (by being out of scoring distance, prvent or give an assist etc.).
While removing a key player in turn 2 surely changes the game - and often hugely, it is just harder to directly trace that back directly once youre in turn 16. (so anisdrin´s quote is quite correct, in turn 2 you shouldnt say: "that´s game", but such an event (and more a cas than ko, ofc. could be the game changer)
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2013-05-20 13:00:02
So what was the 1 square position difference?
Posted by Kelkka on 2013-05-20 15:14:33
To avoid naming&shaming I left the details out on purpose. And those 2 examples were actually in 2 different matches.
The way I see it, "could change the game" is perfect phrase to use on early KO. There is a chance the player is out for rest of the game, but he might come back too. Compared to early cas, where it definitely changes the match.
The way I see it, "could change the game" is perfect phrase to use on early KO. There is a chance the player is out for rest of the game, but he might come back too. Compared to early cas, where it definitely changes the match.
Posted by JackassRampant on 2013-05-20 16:27:59
Injuries matter more early. Positioning matters more when you can't recover from a fail, whenever that may be. Later on, recovering from a positioning error can be harder because you can run out of time, and thus on the whole the little stuff tends to matter more as the game goes on, while the big stuff tends to matter more at the beginning, where it sets the tone and defines the two sides' resources.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2013-05-20 17:21:16
[b] Lumberjack Effect[/b]
Being from a a family of lumberjacks I can't tell your anology is silly. What you said makes sense, but taking down a tree is all in the actual Lumberjack. It REALLY depends on who is the one swinging the axe. Is it Paul Bunion, or Rip Taylor? Ive seen Azure beat the heck out of guys with Box Flings, when others never win a match with that same race in Ranked. Turn 2 is not a game changer.
Being from a a family of lumberjacks I can't tell your anology is silly. What you said makes sense, but taking down a tree is all in the actual Lumberjack. It REALLY depends on who is the one swinging the axe. Is it Paul Bunion, or Rip Taylor? Ive seen Azure beat the heck out of guys with Box Flings, when others never win a match with that same race in Ranked. Turn 2 is not a game changer.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-05-20 21:19:08
To add to this:
In yet another GLT game a key player was removed on turn 2, by failing a dodge, and KOing himself. He never recovered. Another key player was removed on turn 4, by KO, and never recovered. Those 2 removals by themselves didn't lose the game, but, combined with the opponent playing well, and a lack of any dice giving things back throughout the game meant the key players who could have changed the game without dice were never available to take advantage of any opportunities that came up through positioning.
In yet another GLT game a key player was removed on turn 2, by failing a dodge, and KOing himself. He never recovered. Another key player was removed on turn 4, by KO, and never recovered. Those 2 removals by themselves didn't lose the game, but, combined with the opponent playing well, and a lack of any dice giving things back throughout the game meant the key players who could have changed the game without dice were never available to take advantage of any opportunities that came up through positioning.
Posted by CW on 2013-05-21 02:08:21
Not sure if any of you are fans of baseball. I am a huge baseball history buff. One thing that is interesting can be found on a site called baseball-reference.com. Boxscores for practically every game in Major League history can be found, and if you know where to look you can see an entry for every play in that game. Within that entry is a running percentage that gives you a teams odds of winning the game based on the current situation.
Here is what I think is pertinent to this discussion. At the beginning of the game the odds will change a bit on each play. An out will move the odds in favor of one team, a hit will move the odds in favor of another. EVERYTHING is important. However, as you get toward the end of the game, it takes much more significant events to "move the meter". And, sometimes, if it is a blowout, it isn't going to move at all. But in a tight game, the late game event could move the meter HUGE chunks. For instance, I am looking at a game where a 3-run homer in the 7th moved a team from down 3-2, to ahead 5-3. The percentage changed from 30% to 78%. You will never get that kinda percentage movement in an early game occurrence.
The exact same thing applies to Blood Bowl. An early injury is going to make a difference. A blitz on the opening kickoff...significant. Even the receiving team fumbling that opening pickup attempt and burning a reroll in the process is going to move that percentage. Late in the game, there is a good chance that no matter what happense the outcome has already been decided. But, there is also a chance that some event completely alters the course of the game and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
Here is what I think is pertinent to this discussion. At the beginning of the game the odds will change a bit on each play. An out will move the odds in favor of one team, a hit will move the odds in favor of another. EVERYTHING is important. However, as you get toward the end of the game, it takes much more significant events to "move the meter". And, sometimes, if it is a blowout, it isn't going to move at all. But in a tight game, the late game event could move the meter HUGE chunks. For instance, I am looking at a game where a 3-run homer in the 7th moved a team from down 3-2, to ahead 5-3. The percentage changed from 30% to 78%. You will never get that kinda percentage movement in an early game occurrence.
The exact same thing applies to Blood Bowl. An early injury is going to make a difference. A blitz on the opening kickoff...significant. Even the receiving team fumbling that opening pickup attempt and burning a reroll in the process is going to move that percentage. Late in the game, there is a good chance that no matter what happense the outcome has already been decided. But, there is also a chance that some event completely alters the course of the game and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2013-05-21 23:46:08
Great stuff CW. I also used love Baseball stats. I haven't been at since I was 20. Sounds like a site, I would be interested in checking out.
I'm under the beliefs odds for wining or losing are not as important to what has transpired, but will or could transpire. To use a poker analogy, A chip and a seat. That means that if you are in the game, anyone can win because of luck.
I'm under the beliefs odds for wining or losing are not as important to what has transpired, but will or could transpire. To use a poker analogy, A chip and a seat. That means that if you are in the game, anyone can win because of luck.