bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 11:41 |
 
|
There were very good discussions about team building, and majors, and tactics available. (Like the holy trinity of 1turner, killer, ballcarrier, and so on)
I was thinking the ways that are key factors at determining who wins in any particular major matchup:
1. Coaching skill (or better say the difference between the coaches)
2. Team composition (this was discussed by Wreckage)
3. Matchup (some matchups are favourable for one party
4. The so called Wizard gambit (aka inducement strategy)
5. Random factor.
This thread will concentrate at the Wizard gambit. I am gathering my theories around that. Feel free to post it meanwhile I am working on that. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:38 |
|
Not to rain on your parade, but assuming that the coaching levels are roughly the same (which means the team compositions are also going to be 'strong' or 'normal') then you're left with 3 and 5 mattering almost exclusively.
And 3 really only is an impact on 5 for just how much random factor needs to swing. So Zons can beat dwarfs, even though they would not be favored against them, but it will take more 'luck' than for the dwarfs to beat the zons. Really, from my point of view, everything just feeds into 5. That's not to say I think all games are completely random and tactics don't matter, but it is to say that the amount of luck needed to win (because there is always some chance involved) is dependent on how your first 4 factors figure. The rookie coach can beat the legend, even in a bad match up, if the dice simply fail the legend when he needs them, and work for the rookie on his improbable plays.
Not that I'm a legend, but I have played clearly inferior coaches with poorly constructed teams, and lost, because they succeeded on their 5+ pass into 2 TZs 6 catch, 6 dodge, and double gfi to score. Then I roll quad skulls on my drive, and wind up needing my own miracle pass/gfis which of course fail.
However, discussing the aspects of how and when to use (and even induce over other options) a wizard should be a valuable discussion. Personally, when I have a ton of inducements, if I'm facing a team with 3 or fewer rrs (including leader) I really consider taking a chef. Especially if it's an AG3 team that only has one sure hands, or is otherwise limited in their ball handling.
It's an expensive risk, but for some matchups the wizard isn't that likely to do as much as the potential for removing your opponents ability to rr will. Of course, if I'm playing as elfs, the wizard is almost entirely a no brainer. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:43 |
|
Lets assume there is no picking, so lets take blackbox as an example. As Christer examined before, Coach Rating is the best indicator of determining the expected outcome. I would not discount No1. I don't think it is more important than the rest all combined, but important nevertheless. You are right that every roll fails on a 1 and succeeds on a 6, but chances are that the legend beats the rookie.
Disclaimer:
With that said I saw extremely clever plays with Veteran level coaches, and stupid course of actions from Super Stars. So I am fully aware that CR is not equivalent of skill. But as you brought statistics into the discussion it is only fair that we show the available statistical tool, which is CR. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:50 |
|
dice, on the whole |
_________________
 |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:54 |
|
There are two factors with Coaching skill though, ability and play. I find it exceedingly rare that a game is decided by luck, usually someone makes a mistake or a dumb move and it's not necessarily the coach with less ability or the worse team. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
Last edited by JimmyFantastic on %b %28, %2015 - %16:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:55 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Not to rain on your parade, but assuming that the coaching levels are roughly the same (which means the team compositions are also going to be 'strong' or 'normal') then you're left with 3 and 5 mattering almost exclusively. |
That's the broadest generalization I ever read. And as such it holds no real value. I have won my fair share of games against CR <175 coaches, and not thanks to dice alone.
I have also lost to CR >140 coaches, and not just because they rolled 6 sixes in a row. |
_________________
 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 16:55 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | There are two factors with Coaching skill though, ability and play. I find it exceedingly rare that a game is decided by luck, usually someone makes a mistake or a dumb move and it's not necessarily the coach with less ability. |
Amen |
_________________
|
|
Sigmar1
Joined: Aug 13, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:04 |
|
@ JanMattys: I do not think '<' and '>' mean what you think they mean.
Unless Euros use those things backwards?  |
_________________
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:12 |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:20 |
|
Is matchup really a subset of team composition? A team has a series of attributes and skills which shape whether it is competitive against another team. Dwarfs are good against zons because they have so much tackle and the zons so much dodge. The same dynamic could be achieved in any two teams with the appropriate skill choices. In some senses this is academic but in another it really matters as it illustrates the importance or otherwise of developing specialised or diverse teams.
It's not really what you're asking but I think the wizard is the clear inducement winner in most cases. For me the evidence that wizards are too powerful is that in major finals coaches will frequently induce a wizard so that both teams have one. I appreciate there is a skill to good wizard play (both on attack and defence) but it always feels unsatisfactory to me as a dynamic different to the one of the 11 vs 11 (or whatever is left after piling on) that I really enjoy. Armed with my Blood Bowl Genie of the lamp, I'd be tempted to use a wish to remove wizards (much as I would miss the glorious fireball). |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:33 |
|
| Harad wrote: | Is matchup really a subset of team composition? A team has a series of attributes and skills which shape whether it is competitive against another team. Dwarfs are good against zons because they have so much tackle and the zons so much dodge. The same dynamic could be achieved in any two teams with the appropriate skill choices. In some senses this is academic but in another it really matters as it illustrates the importance or otherwise of developing specialised or diverse teams.
|
No, it isn't, not at lower TVs anyway before you have enough TV tied to chosen skills. |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:40 |
|
Yes but that is still part of your team composition, just because you made those choices when initiating the team rather than through their development does not make it any less a part of the team's composition.
I understand why other people will choose to view them differently but, to me, it's the same. |
|
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 17:43 |
|
I believe that inducement strategy can become a factor especially when you have the ability to optimise it, meaning 'not ready status' so either tournaments after first game or League games. Obviously the team's treasury and lineup (number of players) comes into the equation. I can give several examples but the most recent ones are the games against Wreckage and kingvan for the WoC where they both commented on my team preparation.
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3672653
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3676647
Writing from phone so I ll get back with details... |
_________________
 |
|
C3I2
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 18:20 |
|
Its like most things, you get diminishing returns. Its why really high TV teams work. After the oppo gets wiz and some other things, what is left to buy? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2015 - 18:43 |
|
This is why I make the distinction.
1. Matchup takes into account the other team's strengths and weaknesses relative to your team and not something you readily have control over unless you play Ranked. If you face Gobbos or Flings your strengths and weaknesses against them are different than if they were Khemri. The inherent attributes of your team build are huge influencers on skills you take, in what order, etc etc.
2. Team composition is based on choices you make as your players skill. Saying that the inherent attributes of a team is part of team composition might be one way to look at it but I think that really mutes the distinction between what you have to work with and what you choose to do. |
Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %28, %2015 - %22:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
