16 coaches online • Server time: 07:32
* * * Did you know? The best passer is Cherrystone Hotpack with 656 completions.
Recent Forum Topics  FUMBBL HAIKU'S | Gnome Roster - how a... | Exempt teams |
2014-08-05 01:14:20
18 votes, rating 4.3
18 votes, rating 4.3
Deleted Blog
Yeah, my earlier blog was rightfully shut down earlier because I was naming and shaming. I tried to be indirect but really, I knew better.
Anyway.....min-maxing. Extreme min-maxing in ranked is bad for the site. For Noobs and those that are unaware of what min-maxing is, it is a "loop-hole" in the rules/team make-up to maximize killing effort and keep TV lower than what it should be. From what I can see the best two teams to min-max are C-Dorfs and Zons. C-Dorfs being the most brutal when you have 6 Blockers and 5 Hobgoblins with only 2 rerolls and maintaining a TV of 130-150. You fall right into the niche of newly blooming teams without many skills. With this team you can effectively neutralize your opponent by winning the cas war.
There is a certain C-Dorf team on the site(please no naming here) and in his last 40 games the average CR of the coaches is 145. So basically he is preying on new coaches to the site and bashing their teams to smithereens. I would think all of us, no matter what our skill level or "fun" requirement sees this is NOT GOOD for the growth and prosperity of the site. Sure, anyone who has been around the block a few times sees this team as being ridiculously low in TV for that the team is capable of.... Even if you do "win" the enjoyment factor will probably be nil. Imagine how newer coaches feel when they face off what looks like a reasonably fair game when you look at the TV. This is in Ranked and Ranked is where the site is telling Noobs to begin. The truth is Noobs should be seeking out Koadah and his 145 club (No affiliation to the religious show the 400 Club). Maybe new people should have a 1 on 1 chat so they can be told to avoid these teams unless they really want to shed some serious TV. Maybe, they like having loners for the next match.
I realize that these teams are within the rules and guidelines of team creation but being such a small community I do not see how coaches can be allowed to prey on rookies and Noobs.
One could argue that Ranked is part of the problem, the way the site is designed is flawed when it comes to match-making. That is why we have BlackBox, right? Well, black box is labeled as the ultra-competitive division. That it is. I have barely gotten my feet wet in the box mainly because I don't like to wait for activation only to be denied a game most of the time. I choose ranked usually and I take a lot of matches that are not ideal but I have a lot of fun for the most part! Also, the way the Box is designed leans heavily towards bash teams and their longevity. I barely scrape by with a 50% win ratio in Ranked with my High Elves and have not gotten them over 175 TV in 60 games. I am usually running each game with 2 or 3 loners. In Box I imagine I will be much worse off once I get my High Elf team rolling.
Ranked caters to those who want a more casual match and do not want to waste an hour or more of their time playing lopsided games. Like a game against Zons when you have 0 tackle. Or playing Dorfs when you are running Flings. And for those who thinks ranked is garbage, yes, there are some teams that are dodging everything. There is also the major and minor tournaments and smacks and those are very exciting to watch and play. You get teams that have been molded into a theme like you would mold a role-playing party. And they face off versus another persons personal squad. Makes for some great games. In the box we probably would not have cool teams like the Agility Monsters or the Dirty Cranberries....there wouldnt be rebound matches for hopelessly injured teams trying to recover.
Ranked has its place. Box is great too(just needs more people activating). But extreme min-maxing serves no proper use to the site and should be dealt with accordingly. Cherry-picking is not cool and hinders the progression of this great game.
Anyway.....min-maxing. Extreme min-maxing in ranked is bad for the site. For Noobs and those that are unaware of what min-maxing is, it is a "loop-hole" in the rules/team make-up to maximize killing effort and keep TV lower than what it should be. From what I can see the best two teams to min-max are C-Dorfs and Zons. C-Dorfs being the most brutal when you have 6 Blockers and 5 Hobgoblins with only 2 rerolls and maintaining a TV of 130-150. You fall right into the niche of newly blooming teams without many skills. With this team you can effectively neutralize your opponent by winning the cas war.
There is a certain C-Dorf team on the site(please no naming here) and in his last 40 games the average CR of the coaches is 145. So basically he is preying on new coaches to the site and bashing their teams to smithereens. I would think all of us, no matter what our skill level or "fun" requirement sees this is NOT GOOD for the growth and prosperity of the site. Sure, anyone who has been around the block a few times sees this team as being ridiculously low in TV for that the team is capable of.... Even if you do "win" the enjoyment factor will probably be nil. Imagine how newer coaches feel when they face off what looks like a reasonably fair game when you look at the TV. This is in Ranked and Ranked is where the site is telling Noobs to begin. The truth is Noobs should be seeking out Koadah and his 145 club (No affiliation to the religious show the 400 Club). Maybe new people should have a 1 on 1 chat so they can be told to avoid these teams unless they really want to shed some serious TV. Maybe, they like having loners for the next match.
I realize that these teams are within the rules and guidelines of team creation but being such a small community I do not see how coaches can be allowed to prey on rookies and Noobs.
One could argue that Ranked is part of the problem, the way the site is designed is flawed when it comes to match-making. That is why we have BlackBox, right? Well, black box is labeled as the ultra-competitive division. That it is. I have barely gotten my feet wet in the box mainly because I don't like to wait for activation only to be denied a game most of the time. I choose ranked usually and I take a lot of matches that are not ideal but I have a lot of fun for the most part! Also, the way the Box is designed leans heavily towards bash teams and their longevity. I barely scrape by with a 50% win ratio in Ranked with my High Elves and have not gotten them over 175 TV in 60 games. I am usually running each game with 2 or 3 loners. In Box I imagine I will be much worse off once I get my High Elf team rolling.
Ranked caters to those who want a more casual match and do not want to waste an hour or more of their time playing lopsided games. Like a game against Zons when you have 0 tackle. Or playing Dorfs when you are running Flings. And for those who thinks ranked is garbage, yes, there are some teams that are dodging everything. There is also the major and minor tournaments and smacks and those are very exciting to watch and play. You get teams that have been molded into a theme like you would mold a role-playing party. And they face off versus another persons personal squad. Makes for some great games. In the box we probably would not have cool teams like the Agility Monsters or the Dirty Cranberries....there wouldnt be rebound matches for hopelessly injured teams trying to recover.
Ranked has its place. Box is great too(just needs more people activating). But extreme min-maxing serves no proper use to the site and should be dealt with accordingly. Cherry-picking is not cool and hinders the progression of this great game.
Comments
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-08-05 01:22:54
Wait-a-minute... ranked is the division plagued by minmaxers and box not...
*rubs eyes*
Am I that tired that I'm hallucinating?
*rubs eyes*
Am I that tired that I'm hallucinating?
Posted by koadah on 2014-08-05 01:25:55
It is funny stuff. Apparently there are rules about not playing 'down' too often but you can bend rookies over as often as you like.
I really don't get it.
I really don't get it.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-08-05 01:40:53
" Also, the way the Box is designed leans heavily towards bash teams and their longevity."
Not at all. If you want to survive then you use a bash team. If you want to win then you use an agility team.
Not at all. If you want to survive then you use a bash team. If you want to win then you use an agility team.
Posted by Fortis on 2014-08-05 02:42:22
Min-maxing in ranked isn't a huge deal. Those teams are advertised as such (click the question mark, if they have >5 MB & PO (or claw) at 1500TV then it's clearly a min-max job and you don't have to play them.
Picking new players is a thing though, but not a huge deal. Rookies get picked a couple of times. They then either figure out that the player ranking means something (don't play legends if you don't want to lose hard) or they decide to learn from that. They also pretty quickly get ushered into the 145 club. Someone drags the site for active players in the ranking and contacts them regularly.
The system works well. Box has it's idiosyncrasies but it is what it is and everyone knows it. Ranked lets you choose how bad you want to get beat up if you are bad, either by injuring players or by losing 4-0
Picking new players is a thing though, but not a huge deal. Rookies get picked a couple of times. They then either figure out that the player ranking means something (don't play legends if you don't want to lose hard) or they decide to learn from that. They also pretty quickly get ushered into the 145 club. Someone drags the site for active players in the ranking and contacts them regularly.
The system works well. Box has it's idiosyncrasies but it is what it is and everyone knows it. Ranked lets you choose how bad you want to get beat up if you are bad, either by injuring players or by losing 4-0
Posted by MattDakka on 2014-08-05 02:44:35
Agility teams can and actually win in the Box, CRP is probably the most agile-team-friendly ruleset ever (thanks to journeymen rule and Wizard inducement).
Back in LRB4 you struggled to have an 11 players agile team.
Back in LRB4 you struggled to have an 11 players agile team.
Posted by NerdBird on 2014-08-05 04:12:27
@Matt & Jimmy : Agility wins in the box? Looking at the major tournaments I see 2 Elf teams and a Skaven winner. The rest are all bash teams..... Looks like bash has it pretty wrapped up. Mind, you most of the teams playing in Box are bash teams so percentage wise maybe things are close? Also, I think the wizard is a huge deal for agility teams versus bash; most of time he is worth 1 score. In a game where the Bash team is looking for a 2-1 victory this is a huge deal! The wizard is a tad overpowered for 150K when it works.
@Chainsaw; You are very tired. :-) I don't know if it is extreme min-maxing in the box but much tighter TV maintenance. And just about everyone is doing it in the box.....
@Fortis: I dont think we should be facilitating these dirty min-maxers with new blood just so they can teach these rookies how bad they can lose while having no chance. Ganes usually start out easy and work their way up in challenge, not the other way around :-)
@Chainsaw; You are very tired. :-) I don't know if it is extreme min-maxing in the box but much tighter TV maintenance. And just about everyone is doing it in the box.....
@Fortis: I dont think we should be facilitating these dirty min-maxers with new blood just so they can teach these rookies how bad they can lose while having no chance. Ganes usually start out easy and work their way up in challenge, not the other way around :-)
Posted by NerdBird on 2014-08-05 04:15:14
BTW, I typed all of this on my phone at work, so please forgive any grammar and punctuation errors.... :-p
Posted by Fortis on 2014-08-05 04:31:44
Sure, but there's no good way to police it other than the things we already do (Identify people by win percentage in the matchmaking, have rookie leagues and groups, have very good how to play guides, have lots of people aware of these things and ready and willing to point new players to them). There's literally nothing more we can do about this issue.
Posted by MattDakka on 2014-08-05 04:45:49
Yep, agility teams do win in the Box, but people generally lean towards the bash path for some reasons (bashing is psychologically less frustrating than being bashed, most of bash teams' actions rely on 2 dice, once you've removed some players the match gets easy, with less or no need of positional play).
Posted by JetsamJay on 2014-08-05 05:47:04
Maybe when you create a team league should be the default setting and there could be something about the 145 club in its description.
Posted by koadah on 2014-08-05 07:18:27
@Fortis: "There's literally nothing more we can do about this issue."
We can delete a coach's teams if he plays down too often or uses journeymen when he has too much cash. But in this case there is nothing we can do?
Are you having me on?
We can delete a coach's teams if he plays down too often or uses journeymen when he has too much cash. But in this case there is nothing we can do?
Are you having me on?
Posted by cdassak on 2014-08-05 07:47:32
@ koadah The problem is that even if the teams were deleted he would just do it again, wouldn't he? It would be a good start though ;)
Btw…
I don’t think that the Box is plagued by dirty min-maxers anymore.
The typical 0/1 RR, with 2 or 3 legend killers and the rest rookies, pact or cdorf n00b-hunting teams that used to plague the Box (from what I hear – I started playing after the changes) are more or less history.
I generally check the teams that play in the Box and the only team that strike me as dirty min-maxers is (surprise!) from the same coach (c.dorfs, 2RR, 6 blockers – 5 hobgoblins) - btw he doesn’t have a Box Amazon team, probably because you can’t avoid dorfs and cdorfs in the Box :P
Btw…
I don’t think that the Box is plagued by dirty min-maxers anymore.
The typical 0/1 RR, with 2 or 3 legend killers and the rest rookies, pact or cdorf n00b-hunting teams that used to plague the Box (from what I hear – I started playing after the changes) are more or less history.
I generally check the teams that play in the Box and the only team that strike me as dirty min-maxers is (surprise!) from the same coach (c.dorfs, 2RR, 6 blockers – 5 hobgoblins) - btw he doesn’t have a Box Amazon team, probably because you can’t avoid dorfs and cdorfs in the Box :P
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-08-05 08:11:23
Both divisions have their abusers. At least in R it's nominally against the rules, in B some celebrate it as good play.
Nothing is better than anything else. If you have issues, report.
Nothing is better than anything else. If you have issues, report.
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-08-05 08:15:21
If one particular coach is repeatedly seeking matches that are clearly uncompetitive, then that is certainly a problem, and should be dealt with accordingly.
However, dealing with some 'heart' of the issue is more complicated.
Consider your half-sentence here: "extreme min-maxing serves no proper use to the site".
Well, the question of 'extreme min-maxing' is certainly a subjective one. Not using Bull Centaurs might seem extreme to you (it did to me, when I first saw it) but I can certainly believe that for many veteran Chaos Dwarf coaches, it might just be an obvious and correct choice if one is determined to play competitively–– as obvious as not taking 2 Assassins or a Deathroller to a tournament. What you see as 'min-maxing' might not look that way to some others, while others might look at your teams and have a good case that you are 'min-maxing' ad nauseum.
The idea that coach choices should 'serve proper use to the site' (this is a strange construction, but I discern your meaning) is also a contentious one. One aim of the site is certainly to promote great games and happy coaches, but there are other goals as well–– such as including all the rules, irrespective of whether or not this interferes with the previous goal. Another worthy goal might be to draw the most skilled coaches in the world to this site. Another might be to provide a structured playing environment to host the world's largest Blood Bowl tournaments, and another might be to provide fertile ground for coaches to be innovative and experiment with Blood Bowl styles that would be difficult to implement elsewhere. (Really, the main goal of the site might just be to provide a place where Christer can put his love of coding to practical use.)
So... the current state of things definitely supports some of these aims, and changing rules to deny something that you don't like (and is hard to pin down) would likely jeopardize some of these aims.
My point is that––even if we take this subject as a big 'issue', which I'm not sure it is––changing general policies without risking adverse effects on the environment, dissatisfaction of many coaches, and altering the perception of what FUMBBL is is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
However, systematically seeking uncompetitive match-ups IS against the site rules (if I recall correctly), and you should not hesitate to report it if you see it. But it has to be more substantial than saying some guy isn't playing his team according to the thematic rules you've made in your head (which is the most common complaint on this subject). If there is data and personal testimonials that this kind of playing has led to new coaches abandoning the site, I don't necessarily disbelieve it, but I'd like to see proof that it exists.
(I deleted and reposted this comment to correct a typo)
However, dealing with some 'heart' of the issue is more complicated.
Consider your half-sentence here: "extreme min-maxing serves no proper use to the site".
Well, the question of 'extreme min-maxing' is certainly a subjective one. Not using Bull Centaurs might seem extreme to you (it did to me, when I first saw it) but I can certainly believe that for many veteran Chaos Dwarf coaches, it might just be an obvious and correct choice if one is determined to play competitively–– as obvious as not taking 2 Assassins or a Deathroller to a tournament. What you see as 'min-maxing' might not look that way to some others, while others might look at your teams and have a good case that you are 'min-maxing' ad nauseum.
The idea that coach choices should 'serve proper use to the site' (this is a strange construction, but I discern your meaning) is also a contentious one. One aim of the site is certainly to promote great games and happy coaches, but there are other goals as well–– such as including all the rules, irrespective of whether or not this interferes with the previous goal. Another worthy goal might be to draw the most skilled coaches in the world to this site. Another might be to provide a structured playing environment to host the world's largest Blood Bowl tournaments, and another might be to provide fertile ground for coaches to be innovative and experiment with Blood Bowl styles that would be difficult to implement elsewhere. (Really, the main goal of the site might just be to provide a place where Christer can put his love of coding to practical use.)
So... the current state of things definitely supports some of these aims, and changing rules to deny something that you don't like (and is hard to pin down) would likely jeopardize some of these aims.
My point is that––even if we take this subject as a big 'issue', which I'm not sure it is––changing general policies without risking adverse effects on the environment, dissatisfaction of many coaches, and altering the perception of what FUMBBL is is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
However, systematically seeking uncompetitive match-ups IS against the site rules (if I recall correctly), and you should not hesitate to report it if you see it. But it has to be more substantial than saying some guy isn't playing his team according to the thematic rules you've made in your head (which is the most common complaint on this subject). If there is data and personal testimonials that this kind of playing has led to new coaches abandoning the site, I don't necessarily disbelieve it, but I'd like to see proof that it exists.
(I deleted and reposted this comment to correct a typo)
Posted by pythrr on 2014-08-05 08:20:51
we all know who you are talking about, so doesn't this constitute naming and shaming by glaringly obviousness?
Posted by Roland on 2014-08-05 08:45:29
play league ffs
Posted by Verminardo on 2014-08-05 09:50:49
"Agility wins in the box? Looking at the major tournaments I see 2 Elf teams and a Skaven winner. The rest are all bash teams....."
If you look at the Box teams of good coaches, though, you will find that their AG teams invariably have a better winning record than their bash teams. Majors favour bash teams because of the survival aspect. You need to survive about 8 games in a row to win a major. AG teams will often have one game in between where they just get mauled. It's not that different in Ranked majors, only more AG teams do enter there, increasing the chance of one of them making it through, and decreasing the number of bash opponents they have to face.
It is simply easier to build up an AG team for majors in Ranked than in Box, which again comes down to survival. But for winning on a game to game basis? AG all the way.
If you look at the Box teams of good coaches, though, you will find that their AG teams invariably have a better winning record than their bash teams. Majors favour bash teams because of the survival aspect. You need to survive about 8 games in a row to win a major. AG teams will often have one game in between where they just get mauled. It's not that different in Ranked majors, only more AG teams do enter there, increasing the chance of one of them making it through, and decreasing the number of bash opponents they have to face.
It is simply easier to build up an AG team for majors in Ranked than in Box, which again comes down to survival. But for winning on a game to game basis? AG all the way.
Posted by Verminardo on 2014-08-05 10:09:07
P.S.: You missed a couple of AG Box Major winners, too. Check out these posts:
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=24386
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=579611#579611
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=24386
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=579611#579611
Posted by awambawamb on 2014-08-05 10:21:16
best thing against min maxers would be to put a "cap" of subsequent games over a category of teams.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-08-05 11:50:37
There should be nothing to stop min-maxers. It was a tiny problem with the old scheduler. New scheduler is worse imo cos it makes rebuilds of old teams too hard.
Posted by Cloggy on 2014-08-05 12:24:58
There is only so much you can do to an entire system in an effort to stop a small number of sociopaths ruinings things for the community. The smallman change to the B scheduler is enough proof of that.
If Christer would just stop being a nice guy for a couple of days and boot the 5 worst offenders out of HIS HOUSE we would not need to have this everlasting discussion.
If Christer would just stop being a nice guy for a couple of days and boot the 5 worst offenders out of HIS HOUSE we would not need to have this everlasting discussion.
Posted by easilyamused on 2014-08-05 12:37:40
Some people take their win% and CR far too seriously. For them winning is fun.
Just to play devil's advocate, are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have their fun?
They are a small problem. People soon wise up to the pickers and min/maxers and avoid them.
Just to play devil's advocate, are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have their fun?
They are a small problem. People soon wise up to the pickers and min/maxers and avoid them.
Posted by easilyamused on 2014-08-05 12:38:31
@Cloggy, I wouldn't even need a couple of days. Give me 30 mins and the job would be done :)
Posted by radge on 2014-08-05 13:25:34
While everyone indeed should have the freedom to play this game in a manner they find enjoyable, it shouldn't be inflicting too much on other's enjoyment.
Now and then people stop playing, either because they don't have the time, their favourite team got smashed to bits or they just got bored with it. In order for this community not to dwindle away we therefore need to take good care of new coaches who find their way here.
Maybe the rules need to be clarified to make it clear that coaches are expected not to just play rookie and veteran coaches if they are not one themselves. If someone is clearly just picking inexperienced coaches with a team that is likely to hurt their teams so much that they get fed up and leave, well, that person should be reported and warned to change their behaviour. If they after a warning still continue doing exactly that I'm sure the FUMBBL staff can come up with appropriate measures to deal with it.
Now and then people stop playing, either because they don't have the time, their favourite team got smashed to bits or they just got bored with it. In order for this community not to dwindle away we therefore need to take good care of new coaches who find their way here.
Maybe the rules need to be clarified to make it clear that coaches are expected not to just play rookie and veteran coaches if they are not one themselves. If someone is clearly just picking inexperienced coaches with a team that is likely to hurt their teams so much that they get fed up and leave, well, that person should be reported and warned to change their behaviour. If they after a warning still continue doing exactly that I'm sure the FUMBBL staff can come up with appropriate measures to deal with it.
Posted by Woodstock on 2014-08-05 13:51:42
Are we going to treat all the elf pickers in ranked the same way as well? How about all those people that refuse to play dwarfs? Where does it stop?
We, the staff, are well aware of what is happening on the site. If needed we will take appropriate actions, and will not notify the public as usual.
Good day sir.
We, the staff, are well aware of what is happening on the site. If needed we will take appropriate actions, and will not notify the public as usual.
Good day sir.
Posted by albinv on 2014-08-05 15:50:46
As much as i see the issues and were always interested to bring them up myself and hopefully better them - lately i cant take it anymore really.
A few months back Box was the root of all evil and the topic was widely discussed now i see (some of ) the same people defending it as if it was the only hope. It seems to me as if the the subjectivity in this game is mind boggling high, even among experienced and reflected coaches.
In 5 months we're going to discuss again how box is bad and how you're better off in R. I see that there is fluctuation in both divisions so partly those opinions arent wrong ofc in what they observe.
But overall, really just play your thing - it is not like you cant have your way of of fun here on fumbbl and avoid those that have a different definition of it!
It all gets served half as hot as it is cooked really.
One of the topics of this blogs, which really is just merely a copy of the one that got locked down btw, is the idea it would help to pick out coaches that obviously play in a way that -people widely agree upon- will ruin the fun for the majority of coaches here should it become a standard.
Well, just as Woodstock said - how to objectify that as a staff?
It just cant work this easy, its not as simple as that and i would assume the threadstarter is wise enough too know. Seems to me, as much as i could stand behind the opinion certain coaches are just real bad apples, this is more like a personal vendetta or something among the "not-named" coach and the threadstarter.
With all good intentions being noticed, a blog and the topic shouldnt be used for this in the way i see it here (still amusing though, but better just leave it out!).
Now, again: enough corners to play on fumbbl and avoid abusers.
AND it isnt the standard as much as people constantly make it (icluding myself once)!
I see plenty of coaches arranging matches in R that arent picked but fair matchups. Just as i have, in about 50 box games, rarely came up against heavy min maxers/ clawpombers and if, i often wasnt impressed.
If you look at the whole picture i still assume admins on this site do an awesome job and blogs like this dont help anyone (though they include plenty of statement by coaches i respect and can relate to myself)!
Blog probably created additional work for the admins, created a little fuss for all of us coaches here who can once again for another time express their opinion/ or feelings for the sake of it and we're all officially informed that a certain coach is a bad apple (which probably isnt even true too the extent it got expressed here, given we're basing that opinion on a boardgame) - what for? Completely useless - a waste of our time and energy in the end.
(Im still prone to do well intended posts like this myself, in the case i wouldnt mind a reminder myself of how useless it is)
A few months back Box was the root of all evil and the topic was widely discussed now i see (some of ) the same people defending it as if it was the only hope. It seems to me as if the the subjectivity in this game is mind boggling high, even among experienced and reflected coaches.
In 5 months we're going to discuss again how box is bad and how you're better off in R. I see that there is fluctuation in both divisions so partly those opinions arent wrong ofc in what they observe.
But overall, really just play your thing - it is not like you cant have your way of of fun here on fumbbl and avoid those that have a different definition of it!
It all gets served half as hot as it is cooked really.
One of the topics of this blogs, which really is just merely a copy of the one that got locked down btw, is the idea it would help to pick out coaches that obviously play in a way that -people widely agree upon- will ruin the fun for the majority of coaches here should it become a standard.
Well, just as Woodstock said - how to objectify that as a staff?
It just cant work this easy, its not as simple as that and i would assume the threadstarter is wise enough too know. Seems to me, as much as i could stand behind the opinion certain coaches are just real bad apples, this is more like a personal vendetta or something among the "not-named" coach and the threadstarter.
With all good intentions being noticed, a blog and the topic shouldnt be used for this in the way i see it here (still amusing though, but better just leave it out!).
Now, again: enough corners to play on fumbbl and avoid abusers.
AND it isnt the standard as much as people constantly make it (icluding myself once)!
I see plenty of coaches arranging matches in R that arent picked but fair matchups. Just as i have, in about 50 box games, rarely came up against heavy min maxers/ clawpombers and if, i often wasnt impressed.
If you look at the whole picture i still assume admins on this site do an awesome job and blogs like this dont help anyone (though they include plenty of statement by coaches i respect and can relate to myself)!
Blog probably created additional work for the admins, created a little fuss for all of us coaches here who can once again for another time express their opinion/ or feelings for the sake of it and we're all officially informed that a certain coach is a bad apple (which probably isnt even true too the extent it got expressed here, given we're basing that opinion on a boardgame) - what for? Completely useless - a waste of our time and energy in the end.
(Im still prone to do well intended posts like this myself, in the case i wouldnt mind a reminder myself of how useless it is)
Posted by Popcorn on 2014-08-05 17:42:18
How do you guys get paid for those kind of blog entries? Same goes for Youtube hits - how do you profit?
Posted by Azure on 2014-08-05 21:53:43
@pythrr: It is not naming and shaming since I have no idea who this blog is about. (Granted I could name about 5 people off the top of my head that it is likely about...)
As for agility winning in box - there are quite a few teams with absurdly good win rates in the box. Just glancing through my box teams:
Elf: 10/2/2
DE: 24/4/4
HE: 19/4/5
Elf: 13/3/4
WE: 12/0/1 (retired)
And if you want to see a real master - a few of Tarabaralla's teams:
HE: 19/5/1
WE: 30/9/1
Elf: 29/4/1
It is very, very easy to win in blackbox with agility teams. The problem is keeping them alive. I mentioned my wood elf team above because it rocked...but then one bad game and it was retired.
So, it can be hard to keep well built long lasting agility teams in the box...and thus people tend to not play them as much - and they make up a smaller portion of teams at high TV...and they tend to therefore not do as well in tournaments.
As for agility winning in box - there are quite a few teams with absurdly good win rates in the box. Just glancing through my box teams:
Elf: 10/2/2
DE: 24/4/4
HE: 19/4/5
Elf: 13/3/4
WE: 12/0/1 (retired)
And if you want to see a real master - a few of Tarabaralla's teams:
HE: 19/5/1
WE: 30/9/1
Elf: 29/4/1
It is very, very easy to win in blackbox with agility teams. The problem is keeping them alive. I mentioned my wood elf team above because it rocked...but then one bad game and it was retired.
So, it can be hard to keep well built long lasting agility teams in the box...and thus people tend to not play them as much - and they make up a smaller portion of teams at high TV...and they tend to therefore not do as well in tournaments.
Posted by coombz on 2014-08-06 00:23:23
minmaxing is one thing, i think griefing is a separate (although obviously related) issue
i think minmaxing is generally accepted as just being part of this wacky world of online Blood Bowl...people's perception of minmaxer players tends to depends on just how cheesy they are (mildy cheesy to disgusting smelly troll feet)...but overall, it's tolerated, for better or worse...
however this blog seems to be about something else. I find it pretty obvious that running a minmax team in Ranked with the sole aim of cherrypicking rookie coaches (if that is in fact what someone is doing) is griefing.
just ban them.
i think minmaxing is generally accepted as just being part of this wacky world of online Blood Bowl...people's perception of minmaxer players tends to depends on just how cheesy they are (mildy cheesy to disgusting smelly troll feet)...but overall, it's tolerated, for better or worse...
however this blog seems to be about something else. I find it pretty obvious that running a minmax team in Ranked with the sole aim of cherrypicking rookie coaches (if that is in fact what someone is doing) is griefing.
just ban them.
Posted by pythrr on 2014-08-06 01:38:52
meh
one man's griefing is another man's freedom fighter.
one man's griefing is another man's freedom fighter.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-08-06 02:13:33
Griefers Gonna Grief!
Posted by mrt1212 on 2014-08-06 05:52:00
Why do I feel like pythrr and jimmy would be snuggling on a bear skin rug together, watching fumbbl servers burn in the fireplace as they capriciously laugh and sip their merlot.
Pythrr whispers in Jimmy's ear "It's better this way. Smell that? That's freedom."
Jimmy hushes him and pulls him closer "And there's nothing anyone anywhere can do about it."
Fin
Pythrr whispers in Jimmy's ear "It's better this way. Smell that? That's freedom."
Jimmy hushes him and pulls him closer "And there's nothing anyone anywhere can do about it."
Fin
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-08-06 06:56:51
haaaaaaaaaaaH
Posted by fidius on 2014-08-06 17:29:52
Predators follow their prey. Now that Ranked is stacked with almost all the newer players, it should be no surprise that the bad behaviour has shifted there.