Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 20:29 |
 
|
As some of you may know I have been working on an extensive guidebook last year.
After some file corruption issues I had to temporarely put the project on ice. Now I have looked into it again and found an older version with some parts missing. Anyways...
My plan has always been to involve the community a bit in the second release but I did not get quite the guest commentary I had hoped for.
Either way, one part I had not really discussed extensively in the first release was team building.
And that is for good reason.
Any environment has very different requirements regarding team-building. It's not just a matter of division between Ranked, League and Blackbox. There is rather:
Open Ranked, Minor Ranked Tournaments, Major Ranked Tournaments, Open Box, Minor Box Tournaments, Major Box Tournaments, XFL, Open League, Round Robin, Open Round Robin, King of the Hill, Swiss, Knockout, LRB4 and older, Odd/Houseruled, Life Tournament and Mixed in any combination thereof.
And to this point I wasn't even starting about uncompetitive goals like 'kill all menz' or 'role-play passing'.
I don't particularly support the idea that BB was invented for any of those places. I guess simply because I remember some interview with the designers where they claimed to aim to make the game largely accessible and not environment dependent.
Round Robin is NOT a great way to play BB because when people drop games it causes such huge damage. And the best fix to the issue is just not to play in that environment. But that aside, round robin has a strong feel like a real sports league to it and that is something very enjoyable and irreplaceable.
In the end, every environment can be very fun, one has just to try, as a coach to enjoy it to its fullest.
What makes it so hard for me to write about how to win where is also because a lot of strategies are overlapping, so I could just try to pick points about team building that are more universally true, yet there are always exceptions and this all makes it very complicated for me to structure a text about it appropriatly.
Either way, what I actually wanted to talk about was a particular problem regarding team building and building teams high.
To the point:
Rats recent thread about the rule of 5 reminded me of a couple of things I used to teach and why and I noticed that there exists some serious dissent within the community also from some very good decent coaches. So, I don't want to write anything wrong, therefore this topic.
Let me explain my point of view:
I have never been particularly successful in building teams high, yet I always have considered myself as someone who tries to build epic teams first and foremost before winning becomes a factor.
I try to be successful in tournaments but most of the time I don't even enter either because I miss a deadline, have only garbage teams or my teams TV is so low that they just can't make the cut.
So, how can this be? Essentially what I have been trying to do over the years is to build a solid winning team from the start and to sort of just let it grow bigger and bigger.
The argument is that when you have a low level team that is perfectly balanced, you also have a good basis for a high level team. Early on back in LRB4 I experimented with taking lots of stat ups and doubles that would help me 3 or 4 skills later on the development path of the player but eventually I found that it would lose me games early on and by the time the player was build up he was mostly also dead or injured.
Building a team in a way that it was winning did not only just feel more satisfying, it also helped to get more money and more spp and win more games.
In the new ruleset there is also always another question lurking in the background: Is a high TV team really better than a low TV team with inducements? C sais no, there are statistics to proof mid TV teams are marginally better.
I believe high TV teams that are designed well are better but many times they will not be. The value of something like a wiz I find very hard to determine in TV. It's possible that having him on the team may enable you to beat a team with much higher TV or be relatively irrelevant based on the particular setup of that team, or rather both teams.
Anyways the core issue is really regarding whether to build a team quick up high or to build a solid foundation. Lets assume for this discussion that the objective is both competative play in every game aswell as having a shot in some sort of high TV event, may that be ranked or league or something else.
For any contribution that makes it useable for me as advice in the guide I'd be thanful. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 20:37 |
|
For me it's fairly simple, if you have teams with 4 positionals (Orcs, Nurgle etc...) what you are really looking for is an ever evolving team.
Ideally, Warriors with 1 Skill, 2 Skills, 3 Skills and one with 4 or 5 Skills and pesti's with the same. Plus a smattering of 0-2 skill fodder. With this kind of setup, as you lose players you have an ever moving conveyorbelt of players replacing the fallen.
Of course, the truth is it never quite works like that, sometimes you end up with all your players at 4 skills, sometimes you have a really bad game and you end up with 4 rookie positionals, but the idea is in where to skill players.
If you have a 2 skill, 3 skill and 5 skill Pesti, then the rookie should be a target for getting the first skill. If you have 2 single skill Warriors and the other are 4 skill and 5 skill, then you will probably be aiming to skill a warrior up to 2 skills.
That's all a bit simplistic, but the point is, with ongoing teams, as well as being about the current games, it's also about having an ongoing line of part built replacements.
Well, that's one sort of theory anyway. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 21:39 |
|
I don't quite understand your question.
I mean, yes, I understand what you are asking, but it seems to ignore some fundamental aspects of how a team gets built *DEPENDING* on the environment you are building it in.
That is, do you really have this choice to build broad vs. building narrow? Of course, to a degree you always do, but ultimately it comes down to the luck of the games you are playing in. That assumes fully that you are playing competitive games (so that means L mostly). In that case, playing to win, you don't have the same luxury to spread spp around to other players, your 'stars' will always wind up hogging the lions share anyway.
I look at it this way, in R and B I don't really care, the games are meaningless, so whatever your goal is, you play to augment that goal. If that's trying to pass it to a Black Orc in the end zone then you do that. You can build whatever team you want if you are patient enough and don't care what your record is. These are (certain) tournament teams (more in R than B, but let's not kid ourselves, you can do the same in B if you like).
In L (with some exceptions, but let's assume you are always playing to win rather than to build) the calculus should be different. My experience shows that unless the inducements generate a lot of luck, the 2000+TV team is at a huge advantage over low to mid TV teams. So you are a bit reliant on either blow outs where you can afford to hand off to AG1 or AG2 players multiple times, or just those guys getting their share of CAS/MVPs to skill them up. Else, your scorers are just going to score all the TDs, because you can't afford to try anything else.
I realize none of that really addresses your question, but frankly, the way you expressed it...
| Quote: | | Lets assume for this discussion that the objective is both competative play in every game... |
Answers itself as far as I'm concerned. Different rosters can approach that differently, elfs can risk more handoffs to low spp players than can khemri or other AG2 teams. Even most AG3 teams are not risking a lot of handoffs to their linemen without multiple rrs and a totally safe result even if the ball is dropped.
So if your goal is to build a 2000+TV team in a competitive environment where you need to win every game, then there really isn't a specific rule to follow, because the course of each game will dictate how you are forced to score TDs. Yes, you probably will (and should) wind up with a couple players with 31+ spp in the first several games, because those kinds of players help you win more at those TVs than does having 10 guys with 6 spp each. But in either case, you cannot afford to play to build rather than play to win, the spp will find itself on certain players more naturally.
Your 1st pomber will keep on racking up CAS, your +AG leap elf the same with TDs. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 21:49 |
|
| Quote: | | In L (with some exceptions, but let's assume you are always playing to win rather than to build) |
But you are NOT always going to be playing to win.
If your team is weak you may well be better off building it for a season rather than going all out for promotion then not being able to compete in the higher division. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 21:52 |
|
Which is why I threw in that caveat...
Which you even quoted...
 |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 21:57 |
|
I am not sure if I read it right, but it seems to me that you are looking for the highest chance of winning a major. If that is the case, then there is no best answer from the numbers world, as you may or may not want to factor into the time you can assign for team development. If you have infinite time (not possible, but hey), then actually does not matter what you do, you will have the perfect team in "no time" (pun intended).
If you have limited amount of time, then you may want to get a major ready team as soon as possible, as half of winning one is actually showing up. If you don't show up, but develop teams instead, then you may marginally increase that team's chances. But is it worth it purely from the major-winning point of view? Depends on the person, and the availability. |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 21:58 |
|
Licker, I feel like a lot of your arguments I could also sum up to:
'BB is a game of luck and strategy is pointless, what do you want from me?'
I guess it's really just about looking beyond that scope and to see what you really can do.
As mentioned, the question isn't just who to skill but also what to skill with. Doubles and stat ups are a lot less appealing when you just need that normal roll to improve your team right now.
But if you really need a very specific question, it would be something like: How would you make a ten step plan to build a team in a way that it can win a major tournament. What skills should it have? When do you know it is ready? What exceptions apply?
I realize this is hard to do in such a general sense, but that is exactly why I was adressing you guys. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:04 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | If you have infinite time (not possible, but hey), then actually does not matter what you do, you will have the perfect team in "no time" (pun intended). |
That's a good point. I guess for most of the time I have been looking at it like that in R.
But after 4000 something games you have to accept that.. like you say... you never really have infinite time.
So I guess my parameters would be.. ample but not infinite time...
from a league perspective you could also say: You don't have to win the league in one season, but you have to try to win it eventually and all along the way you don't wanna completely suck. |
|
|
C3I2
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:05 |
|
Its not just to win, if that was the case I'd build an orc, nurgle or skaven team. Most players also care about HOW they win. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:07 |
|
I guess I should also mention there that some races are better suited to win than others...
Maybe the best approach to the topic would actually be to think about strategies to win a major with races that actually stand a chance of winning one... |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:08 |
|
| licker wrote: | Which is why I threw in that caveat...
Which you even quoted...
|
There is not much point making the assumption when you have such a big exception.
For some teams like elves your strategy maybe be to build up your team to win the title in your first or second season after promotion to the top division.
After that your team may be destroyed so you drop down to rebuild or retire.
Also, once you realise that you cannot win the title/promotion you may decide to consolidate for next season. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:12 |
|
Ok, this reformulation of subject gives me a chance to correspond in a constructive manner. Steps to consider:
1. Pick a short list of team which is "Tier A" now, and you like.
2. Choose the one among them, which develops best. That is your race.
3. Develop this team.
4. Do not bloat your team with huge bench, keep the logical minimum, and hord cash, you will need at a tournament.
5. You will need a killer, be it a soft MB-er, or a proper killstack.
6. You will need a dedicated ball handler too.
7. You will have a random player with stat increases, be prepared to follow the path it leads you, but don't accept any other stats, unless it fits to the players profile. Your flexibility is only 1 stat freak player, no more slot to develop.
8. You may use kick, dirty player, dedicated sacker or such specialist, but it highly depends on your team.
9. Take a no nonsense approach on the supporting cast. Accessory skills are actually damaging your potential.
10. Buy the bench before you apply to the major. You will need a 12th player for sure.
11. Decide how you want your team look like. There are builds of orcs which spam dodge, others do not take it at all. The worst teams are the inconsistent ones. Every team will have at least one tackler, so 1 dodge does not really make a difference at the supporting cast.
12. Decide how you attack the meta. Know what are your weak matchups, and try your luck with inducement petty cash, when you have the underhand. Build your teams that maximizes the chance at the winnable matchups. If there is a matchup which is not winnable, do not build the team that way to mitigate that loss. (With that said most "Tier A" teams do not have autoloss matchups, but you may need this principle anyway.)
13. I think that a team at 1600ish TV, 1 killer, 1 ball handler, and 1 appropriate specialist, full of bank, and 1 reserve is a decent shot for a trophy. |
Last edited by bghandras on %b %25, %2015 - %22:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:14 |
|
Yes, it's impossible to do generally as different races have different builds/requirements for competing at high TV. It also depends on what you expect to face, lots of elfs? Lots of bash? Even mix?
I'm not trying to diminish your question or your quest  I just don't see how very general bits of advice really help.
More because 'building' is very luck dependent, which is different from saying that BB is luck dependent, but if you are playing DE and you say things like...
I need the following:
+ST blitzer with MB
+AG blitzer/Witch
+MA blizer/Witch
minimum 3 players with guard
...
Sure you can design whatever build you want on paper, but you cannot guarantee you'll ever actually be able to put the right stats/doubles on the right players in the right order.
I don't think that's really what you want though, that's very specific, not general.
So what do you want for a successful high TV team? You have to split it between elf ball and bash, they don't need the same things, they don't really want the same things, and somethings are impossible for them to have anyway.
The one thing that is true is that you always want a bench You don't want to bring just 11 or loners. You want a dedicated ball retriever, which usually just means sure hands, but for elfs if can mean more. You may or may not want a dedicated ball carrier, but that depends on how the rest of your team is built. You want a dedicated blitzer, for some teams that cpomb+tackle, for other teams that's wrestle+stip (you can call him a popper instead of a blitzer, but it's more or less the same thing, just a different path for how you win). For some teams the blitzer is frenzy/tackle... It always helps if your blitzer has +St, dauntless, horns so they can be effective without assists. Some blitzers benefit from +AG some from break tackle, some don't need either. If you cage you want enough guard to hinder leapers from getting easy 1 or 2ds. If you screen you want enough side step to keep the position under your control.
There's some general stuff, it's not about how you build, but it's about what you probably want. Again, building in a hurry if you don't care about record is one thing, you risk more passes/handoffs to put spp where you want it. If you have more time (or infinite as bghandras said) it doesn't matter, eventually you wind up with what you want.
If you have only 20 games to prep a rookie team then it really is just about the luck in what you roll for skills. Sorry, but that's just how it is, you can't control anything about that, only how much spp you put where, but not what the result of that spp winds up being.
Or, you can just play a team that doesn't care about doubles or stats. The most obvious ones of these to me are slann and vamps, with chaos just for sheer cpomb spam stupidity hanging around too. |
|
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:26 |
|
Vamps care a lot about stats, Slann too and not just for the positionals. |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2015 - 22:29 |
|
Bghandras, I love that list.
I'll put it 1:1 like that in my guide with your nametag on it if you don't mind.
It's a good starting point I guess. Then more specific questions can be discussed.
Like... nr. 5... what makes a proper killer...
or.. nr.6... what the dedicated carrier needs..
what are other common types?
sacker, supporter, antimobility (diving tackle), special (frenzy for instance), OT-scorer, dedicated passer vs decidated carrier vs mixed..
how to deal with the six skill development limit on the various types and what to include over what? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
