| Poll |
| Compared to playing with somewhat skilled up teams, playing a single new TV 1000 matchup is.... |
| Pretty much the worst test of coaching skill |
|
6% |
[ 6 ] |
| A pretty bad test of coaching skill |
|
40% |
[ 40 ] |
| A similar test of coaching skill |
|
16% |
[ 16 ] |
| A pretty good test of coaching skill |
|
16% |
[ 16 ] |
| Pretty much the best test of coaching skill |
|
5% |
[ 5 ] |
| Pie |
|
17% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 100 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 10:31 |
 
|
Hi all! So I was arguing about this question elsewhere, and my counterpart in that discussion asked me to consider the possibility that I was in the minority in my opinion. Rather than assert that I wasn't, I figured I'd check with the real experts (i.e. the fumbbl hive mind).
So the idea of this poll is to see what experienced Bloodbowl coaches think of the suitability of different formats for determining who is the better bloodbowl coach. More specifically, the question is whether a new TV1000 is more/less/equally suitable as a test of coach skill, as compared to 'somewhat skilled up teams' (think TV 1400 or so, with a specific #of skill-ups, no stats, and only 1 doubles).
Please vote on the poll, and post your arguments below. Also, I'd be very interested to see if anyone has data to back either standpoint up. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
paradocks
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 10:49 |
|
The whole notion of trying to determine who is the best blood bowl coach seems utterly repugnant to me, unless say you played the exact same match up 100 times in a row. Even then you're only getting an indication of who might be best at that particular match up, which may be no true indication at all of who is actually the best overall coach. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 10:53 |
|
| paradocks wrote: | | The whole notion of trying to determine who is the best blood bowl coach seems utterly repugnant to me, unless say you played the exact same match up 100 times in a row. Even then you're only getting an indication of who might be best at that particular match up, which may be no true indication at all of who is actually the best overall coach. |
Well yes, sure, agreed. However if, hypothetically, you were organizing a world championship main event 64 player knock-out tournament, there would still be arguments for and against a single-match TV1000 rookie team as a test of skill. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
PeteW
Joined: Aug 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:06 |
|
Too few skills, too few rerolls.
Being a good coach is all about risk assessment; weighing up the risk/reward, minimising fallout if failure, calculating the long term costs of failure (players injured), reroll conservation.
Also with skills you can play interference with blodgers/sidesteppers, and positional play goes to a whole new level.
There are also the off-pitch management skills of team building and player protection to consider, but this is beyond the scope of this thread.
The tabletop tournaments that are around TV1100 with 6 skills or so (thus making a TV1230ish team) seem to be very good imho. There is a the metagame of skill choice, and the in-game play of skill protection, and you can never quite have all the tools you need. |
_________________
"Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so." MrMojo - where did you go? |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:09 |
|
The beauty of the game is the number of different environments it can successfully be played in. A problem with being human is that people argue their favourite environment is 'best' or 'most competitive' because it's their favourite. I suspect you already know FUMBBL's answer to your question. 
Personally, I find BB most interesting (and yes, that skill plays a greater role in proceedings) around the lower middle of the TV band. Once you get to the fringes (new teams, high TV), it's still great, it's still Blood Bowl and there is still skill involved, but the random factor greatly increases.
Am I saying that because I'm a product of FUMBBL, of tabletop, of both, or is it just a logical opinion? Dunno. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:17 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | The beauty of the game is the number of different environments it can successfully be played in. A problem with being human is that people argue their favourite environment is 'best' or 'most competitive' because it's their favourite. I suspect you already know FUMBBL's answer to your question.
Personally, I find BB most interesting (and yes, that skill plays a greater role in proceedings) around the lower middle of the TV band. Once you get to the fringes (new teams, high TV), it's still great, it's still Blood Bowl and there is still skill involved, but the random factor greatly increases.
Am I saying that because I'm a product of FUMBBL, of tabletop, of both, or is it just a logical opinion? Dunno. |
Yes I know, this is why I compared it to 'somewhat skilled up' (TV 1400 with limited skills, which is pretty similar to the staple TV 1100+6 skills) and not to 'high TV'. At high TV there is too much rock/paper/scissor, at rookie TV there is too little skill and reroll, making your safest plays unreliable, and the range between 1200 and 1600 is probably the most fruitful to actually test who the better coach is in a single game.
| Purplegoo wrote: |
I suspect you already know FUMBBL's answer to your question.
|
I thought I did, but so far there's more 'best' than 'worst' votes. Surprising. =) |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating)
Last edited by the_Sage on %b %17, %2016 - %11:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:18 |
|
I'd say the limitations in choice and the inability to reduce the randomness in dice rolls make it a slightly worse test of skill.
I couldn't bring myself to call it a 'bad test of skill' so I went for the 'it's even' option.
On the up side if two coaches take both rookie teams they are on even ground and there is not a lot of haggling that can be done. In a way there is no other level where you can test more easily what a good race is, rather than what a good coach is  .
In the end its very specific environment in which itself you can be expert or also not an expert. |
|
|
coombz
Joined: Oct 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:41 |
|
the OP is kinda misleading...although i appreciate you're trying not to show bias ;d
knowing that the context is the BB2 World Cup, and that we're talking about someone trying to earn a 'Blood Bowl World Champion' title (whatever questionable value that may have, as it's for BB2, we'll just leave aside for now), I think I have to answer that 1000TV is a bad test of skill to determine such a 'Champion'
there is a lot more to Blood Bowl than what you see at 1000TV |
_________________
They found 10 grams, seized my whip and took my knife...
That's Trailer Park Life. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 11:50 |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 12:26 |
|
| koadah wrote: | I'd say that you need more skills & rerolls to reduce the impact of luck. Also non progression to reduce the impact of injuries. So not TV1000. Race selection you could put down to coach's judgement.
Are the world cup finals progression? |
Yeah, all 64 qualifying coaches (15 from the top 5 of the 3 ladder seasons, 49 from the various private leagues' tournaments) all just make a new team in a league which runs a standard progrssion KO tournament within the current cyanide client (which doesn't support resurrection). The only difference is that the final (or was it also semifinal?) game will be 'best of 3' (not sure whether that's rematches with progression, or organized as 'friendlies').
| coombz wrote: | the OP is kinda misleading...although i appreciate you're trying not to show bias ;d
knowing that the context is the BB2 World Cup, and that we're talking about someone trying to earn a 'Blood Bowl World Champion' title (whatever questionable value that may have, as it's for BB2, we'll just leave aside for now), I think I have to answer that 1000TV is a bad test of skill to determine such a 'Champion'
there is a lot more to Blood Bowl than what you see at 1000TV |
Yeah, I was trying not to say 'does the cyanide world cup suck?' but get an unbiased answer to 'how luck- vs skill- driven is TV1000, compared to TV 1400ish?'
(I'm a scientist so I do care about biases ) |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 13:01 |
|
Elimination tournaments are a bad measure of coaching skill or playing skill in any games. The winner is surely going to be a great coach, but there is a lot of luck/bad day factor involved in the final outcome.
I'd say Round Robin kind of tournaments offer a better metric, but then again the final result should be factored with the teams involved.
I often find it surprising that nominees to the FIFA best coach are the World Champion Winner and the Champions League Winner, and then some other winning coach. Of course it involves a great deal of coaching to win those awards with Messi in your team, but so does keeping Swansea in the premiership, or getting Leicester to fight for the title.
Good coaching is getting the best out of your resources. To me, ending 15th with the lowest budget requires better coaching skills than winnig the Spanish League with FC Barcelona. |
_________________
 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 13:06 |
|
How are you even determining who is the "better coach" here?
With a TV1000-1200 team do you look at the rolls that were made, or the rolls that weren't? Do you look at the plans that were made and discarded, or the plans that were formulated and put in place? Do you consider race? Are you purely considering on field performance, or is skill selection being judged here too? etc etc
There's not enough controls, you've not specified how you'd measure this nebulous concept, and the answer is pretty much undefinable as such
If I'm entirely honest, I've always felt that the luck/random factor and the considerable entropy of dice on the game means that you can't really nail down any particular TV as the "best" for judgement of skill. This is especially true as we play in an era of bloodbowl where there is a heavy element of metagaming TV - as such you'd need so many controls over team variance that it becomes almost impossible to draw any sort of data. You'll can get plenty of information from Fumbbl, and you can get plenty of nice graphics and variances, but since almost all the games are being played outside of strict control, it isn't actually useful for anything except discussion. However, if you include strict and rigorous control, you will downplay the human element of the game (race, skill selection etc) and thus increase the effect dice have between similarly skilled players.
|
_________________
 |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 13:13 |
|
I'd agree that the table-top format of 1100TV plus around 6 skills is a better test of skill than 1000TV and no skills. There is more opportunity for team design and demonstrating use of skills. At higher TV, when both coaches have all the toys they want does it come down to whose clawpomber rolls the most casualties or whose stat freak doesn't roll ones? I'd say low / mid TV in a regen format is the 'best' test, but that's just my opinion.
Fummbl Majors are a really good and different sort of test. Here it includes testing the patience, skill, judgement and time required to build a competitive team, and then test the ability to succeed in a high TV environment where different considerations / strategies can be more relevant. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 13:35 |
|
| the_Sage wrote: |
| Purplegoo wrote: |
I suspect you already know FUMBBL's answer to your question.
|
I thought I did, but so far there's more 'best' than 'worst' votes. Surprising. =) |
Yes but... It's a forum poll. About as reliable as a very unreliable thing?
Not that I'm particularly bothered, you understand, I should just think using a FUMBBL poll as 'proof' in your argument would be a tough sell.
The point about elimination not being ideal is good. However, tournaments (in any BB format) are not only held to find the 'best' winner. Sadly, they also have to be practical and marketable. I say sadly, because If love to take months off and do it properly. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 14:07 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
Not that I'm particularly bothered, you understand, I should just think using a FUMBBL poll as 'proof' in your argument would be a tough sell.
|
Well, since the particular question for which I made this poll was whether my opinion was a minority opinion, I'd say it's exactly the tool that was called for. I'm fully aware that having people agree with me does not make me right, but at this point the discussion questioned whether my opinion was even one that was common among (experienced) blood bowl coaches. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
