Posted by Throweck on 2014-04-30 21:51:44

Join a nice league and avoid such teams would be my advice.

However, naming and shaming is also frowned upon :)

(Admins may give a you telling off)

Posted by NerdBird on 2014-04-30 21:59:25

I don't mean any shaming, just looking for some feedback from coaches who gear their teams this way. Fortunately I have played this game long enough to see how much a team like this will hurt a newly developing team but I see a lot of new teams and coaches getting lambasted.....

Again, no harm intended towards the coaches of these teams they are just the first examples I saw.

Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-04-30 22:07:00

"I keep seeing teams that are, for all intents and purposes, abominations."

I think you are misusing this phrase. Their intent is to be as streamlined as possible. Their purpose is to win. By all accounts, they are extremely successful. Thus, they are not abominations. They are simply something that you do not take part in appareciating. To conflate the two is... dangerous. History is rife with examples. (e.g. Stalin/Doctors, etc)

What you are missing out on is that the practice of serious players finding a winning strategy in a thing that doesn't resemble a winning strategy is one of the greatest joys of gaming, and one of its longest-standing traditions.

For example, the Queen-sacrifice in chess: "Protect the Queen" is one of the great maxims in the game. Then, one day someone realized that the lure of the Queen was so great that it could draw an opponent into making rash decisions–– losing their positioning and revealing their King. Bobby Fischer developed a similar tactic, where he would immediately sacrifice his knight by forcing the opponent's King to capture it–– but in doing so, would prevent the opponent from castling. People thought this was crazy, until they realized that they were undone by their lack of mobility.

Other examples can be found in games like Magic: The Gathering; people who take a narrow or unpopular card and make it their mission to prove that it can be a viable strategy. It's great fun, and some of the most powerful engines in the game have started with a card which was superficially weak. Blood Bowl is something like Magic, as customization of rosters is much like the customization of a deck.

One of my goals has been to prove (if only to myself) that Ogres and Underworld can be played competitively in Black Box, and I'm proud to have been able to do it. Being unconventional is fun. The first person who realized that a Dwarf team might function better without the 'traditional' build got a lot of personal satisfaction from it.

Posted by Garion on 2014-04-30 22:09:01

Completely agree, that dwarf team is why I quit playing black box. I told him many times during the game that what he was doing was detrimental to the site and he didn't care. I honestly don't understand why it is allowed. Best thing to do is quit blackbox and just play ranked and avoid min max scum bags.

Posted by The_Provocateur on 2014-04-30 22:17:00

5 Fan Factor is terrible, tell him to min/max harder so he can win more.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-04-30 22:19:11

Cpomb doesn't need nerfing.

Fouling needs buffing.

Posted by bghandras on 2014-04-30 22:23:11

I don't think those teams are minmaxed to the extreme. Just saying.

Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-04-30 22:26:05

FETCH THE PITCHFORKS!! Not buying all the positionals on a Dwarf team is ABOMINAAAAATION!!

On a related note–– NerdBird, remind me one more time: which of your two Dwarf teams has hired a Deathroller?

Posted by Verminardo on 2014-04-30 22:26:32

The No-Bull-CDorfs are Ranked, though, Garion. ;)

Part of this is owed to the power of Inducements in CRP but most of it is due to the matchmaking systems on Fumbbl which are somewhat unique, so it's a "Fumbbl thing" rather than a "Blood Bowl thing". In a normal round robin league it wouldn't really be beneficial to build teams like that, although managing TV is certainly important. You might opt for less rerolls, less of a bench. It is legit, arguably even mandatory, to ignore certain positionals (Minotaur, Deathroller, Assassin etc.) Some coaches go by the "rule of five", meaning they only take five positionals at all.

The good news is that these teams, whatever you will call them, are talked about a lot but you will actually face them only very rarely on Fumbbl.

Posted by Garion on 2014-04-30 22:32:12

I know they are, that's why I said in ranked avoid min max scum bags. And both this teams are extreme min maxing, they just aren't the worst the site has seen. Their tv should be far far higher than it is. But by keeping rrs down and avoiding buying positionals they get really easy games. The teams should just get deleted.

Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-04-30 23:26:26

Is this not blatant naming and shaming?

Posted by Jeffro on 2014-04-30 23:28:32

+1 Chainsaw. Bringing fouling back is fun times :)

And those are FAR from min-maxed abominations. I bet folks could find at least two worse offenders than teams above 1400TV and some rerolls on the roster. Decent enough complaint... poor examples of offenders.

Posted by Garion on 2014-04-30 23:44:16

They are perfectly good examples, it just goes to show how bad min maxing has got that anyone would think these are not prime examples.

Posted by xnoelx on 2014-05-01 00:32:52

Not defending min-maxing, it's not my thing at all. But I do have to take issue with the concept that every team should always buy all their positionals. Part of the fun of the game is it's inherent variety. If everybody bought all their positionals, teams would look much more similar. And it would completely rule out fun and fluffy teams like my Rotter Horror Picture Show, who I've had a lot of fun with (all-rotter Nurgle team).

Of course, there are ways to leave out positionals without minmaxing, just felt I should point out that the two, while linked, aren't quite the same issue.

Posted by Hero164 on 2014-05-01 00:38:53

I've always felt that the sad thing about it is the unviability of some teams vs it.

Posted by Jeffro on 2014-05-01 01:42:09

@Garion... that didn't make any sense :)

If you were saying that these are the best examples of min-maxing currently and that proves how bad they are at it, my point that there were once WAY bigger offenders is proven.

But not having any bull centaurs is a long cry from having one player at 228 SPP while the rest of the team is rookies with zero rerolls... a FAR cry ;)

Posted by fidius on 2014-05-01 02:28:12

What some people need to realize is that being hyper-competitive is not a virtue. If winning is so important to you that you will exploit the game's imbalances to do it, you are a poor sportsman. And if it leads you to develop teams that also destroy others' enjoyment of the game (hello mass-cpomb), then you are something far worse. Internet games are anonymous, and as such are a test of character.

Posted by Kam on 2014-05-01 02:31:19

@ xnoelx: my all snots team is the xefinition of minmaxing.

More on topic: you have to be careful what you call minmaxed. I had a norse team called that for instance simply because... they are norses and you're just one game away from having half of your players killed or maimed. That was after one of those games, and I had a bunch of rookies and a few killers. Was I supposed to fire them not to "minmax"? ;)

Posted by JackassRampant on 2014-05-01 02:44:59

I think the answer is in understanding that the game has changed, and playing in the new environment. That mostly means managing tight and not fearing the reaper. No point whining.

Posted by ahalfling on 2014-05-01 06:31:36

A lot of elf teams are "really limited in their game-plan" too -- just in a different direction. The main difference is, you won't find a lot of chaos bashers who aren't willing to face over half the rosters in the game.

I mean, I'm coming at this from a pretty neutral position. I don't think I've ever taken claw. I have a lot of positionals commonly deemed suboptimal. My most successful teams include high-TV Norse and a Dark Elf team that'll omit blitzers before any other positionals. (And Stunty Leeg pygmies, which are definitely in the bottom 5 Stunty teams in terms of usage.) The next time you see me picking, it'll be the first.

But that's not the way it is. It's _a_ way it is. It's not bashers' fault that bashing is an effective strategy -- and it's not SUCH an effective strategy that it's hard to counter with other effective strategies. Personally, I'd go for more BHs and less perms/deaths, allowing the bashers to remain viable on the single-game level without making team building impossible. But that's me.

Posted by Garion on 2014-05-01 09:21:46

I think you are looking at it all wrong. There is not a race I dislike playing (other than Zons, but that is just because I find them dull) I am happy to play bashers like dwarves, chaos, I play anyone with any race. However what this thread is talking about is teams that exploit tv management. These are not 'interesting' builds, like the aforementioned all rotter team or zombie teams etc.. these are just cookie cutter teams built for the sole purpose of killing developing teams while they are already fully formed.

Posted by Rabe on 2014-05-01 12:30:15

To me, the TV matching is indeed the most important point about this. In leagues team management works differently (for example keeping injured players to have a bench at all is much more viable) and teams built for tournaments (without TV cap) certainly look completely different (even though taking inducements into account is very important, too). Plus, you have much less games to build your team - it's far more about "take what you get".

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-05-01 12:40:08

I don't know that you are right about leagues. I was very successful in the hubba league I played in by tightly managing my tv and often getting wizards vs teams that I outclassed anyway.

Posted by Rabe on 2014-05-01 12:46:27

I'm not that experienced in league and there are for sure different approaches. So I'm not sure either. It's more an assumption really. Being able to induce a wizard without giving up too much team capabilities is for sure viable, as the wizard opens up whole new possibilities.

Posted by Garion on 2014-05-01 13:37:18

yup TV management does appear in leagues, but your team was not picking barely developed teams and destroying them, and it happens to a far lesser extent.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-05-01 16:46:41

"Posted by JackassRampant on 2014-05-01 02:44:59
I think the answer is in understanding that the game has changed, and playing in the new environment. That mostly means managing tight and not fearing the reaper. No point whining."

The game has changed due to poor design. Little to no thought was put into long term progression. So, how it's turned out can't be justified. Coaches play like it yes, and after that more jump on the bandwagon to play like it. However my opinion is it's had a severely detrimental effect on the gaming environment.

Those that didn't play a large number of games in a different environment; those that do not understand the premise behind GW games; those that just care about winning, and little about anything else, aren't really qualified to argue against this being a problem. Sure, they can argue they don't want it to change, that's justified and totally understandable, as most of their games are won in the team management phase.