8 coaches online • Server time: 05:36
* * * Did you know? The fouliest player is Bruce Wayne XVII with 2010 fouls.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnome Roster - how a... | Problem to organize ... | Updated star player ... |
2014-02-28 12:28:13
16 votes, rating 5.7
16 votes, rating 5.7
Safety vs. Risk
I watch a lot of replays or spec matches by coaches who are better than me, because it's entertaining and because I learn a lot from it. Generally I tend to think that the best coaches are the ones who play a very careful, controlled game, minimizing risk, being able to draw or possibly win a game even when the dice don't go their way. But I've also come across some coaches who have very good records with certain races, very good positions in the toplists, and when watching them play I think, they don't play that well, how can it be they are so successful?
What these coaches do is they take a lot more risks. Not stupid risks, but risks the "best coaches" mentioned above would not normally take as long as they aren't back to the wall. And way more often than not, these risks pay off, especially with Agility teams. Every once in a while it will backfire big time, which is also why the risk-seekers have a hard time going deep in Majors. At this, the risk-avoiders are more successful, because their style is more consistently reliable. But for a SMACK or BBB the risk-seeking-strategy might just be enough.
I have taken to playing Wood Elves in a risk-seeking fashion lately and the record by far exceeds anything I have managed with other rosters. Granted, Wood Elves are easy mode, but still, I'm at 73% win percentage which is just unreal. I have also reached two finals with them, one in a Minor and one in a Major qualifier. In the last final I tried to play it a bit more careful, not to go all out too soon, especially not to burn my Wizard too early. And I lost. The truth of the matter is I cannot beat a coach like BooAhl on equal terms. I need to trust in luck and I need to give my luck a chance.
This also helps me to grasp why my record with my favourite race, Dark Elves, is so mediocre in the ranked divisions. I've always tried to play the careful, controlling game with them, which has worked out nicely in a private league where I was one of the most skilled players, but in the large pool of Ranked/Box I would need to be more skilled to pull it off consistently. I recently played my Ranked Darkies vs. The_Murker's Ranked Darkies and well I did snake a crucial dodge and was a bit unlucky with the Cas but even before that happened, I was struggling with my attempt at a controlled game vs. a good coach. In 2nd half I just went all out, made an early 4+ dodge into his wide cage and Frenzy-1-diced his ball carrier. That half was closer and more fun, and I even had a 4+ pass to equalize, which I failed but hey, that's exactly the point about trying your luck.
So, I guess I'll try the risk-seeking style with Darkies for a while and see how it turns out!
What these coaches do is they take a lot more risks. Not stupid risks, but risks the "best coaches" mentioned above would not normally take as long as they aren't back to the wall. And way more often than not, these risks pay off, especially with Agility teams. Every once in a while it will backfire big time, which is also why the risk-seekers have a hard time going deep in Majors. At this, the risk-avoiders are more successful, because their style is more consistently reliable. But for a SMACK or BBB the risk-seeking-strategy might just be enough.
I have taken to playing Wood Elves in a risk-seeking fashion lately and the record by far exceeds anything I have managed with other rosters. Granted, Wood Elves are easy mode, but still, I'm at 73% win percentage which is just unreal. I have also reached two finals with them, one in a Minor and one in a Major qualifier. In the last final I tried to play it a bit more careful, not to go all out too soon, especially not to burn my Wizard too early. And I lost. The truth of the matter is I cannot beat a coach like BooAhl on equal terms. I need to trust in luck and I need to give my luck a chance.
This also helps me to grasp why my record with my favourite race, Dark Elves, is so mediocre in the ranked divisions. I've always tried to play the careful, controlling game with them, which has worked out nicely in a private league where I was one of the most skilled players, but in the large pool of Ranked/Box I would need to be more skilled to pull it off consistently. I recently played my Ranked Darkies vs. The_Murker's Ranked Darkies and well I did snake a crucial dodge and was a bit unlucky with the Cas but even before that happened, I was struggling with my attempt at a controlled game vs. a good coach. In 2nd half I just went all out, made an early 4+ dodge into his wide cage and Frenzy-1-diced his ball carrier. That half was closer and more fun, and I even had a 4+ pass to equalize, which I failed but hey, that's exactly the point about trying your luck.
So, I guess I'll try the risk-seeking style with Darkies for a while and see how it turns out!
Comments
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2014-02-28 12:40:01
I am one of the high risk coaches you mentioned.
With Rats and Wood Elves especially, I tend to make plays that some would consider higher risk, but I do try and make calculated gambles.
Having said that, I can also play safe strategy matches (Dwarves for example), but I just don't find it as much fun.
My win % is about the same, regardless of play style, but I do prefer the Tora Tora style a lot more.
With Rats and Wood Elves especially, I tend to make plays that some would consider higher risk, but I do try and make calculated gambles.
Having said that, I can also play safe strategy matches (Dwarves for example), but I just don't find it as much fun.
My win % is about the same, regardless of play style, but I do prefer the Tora Tora style a lot more.
Posted by Roland on 2014-02-28 12:43:43
It's just more fun to play risky with them agile teams.
I'd rather try to steal the ball than just do the usual column defence stalling.
But I'm not at all near top coach :D
I'd rather try to steal the ball than just do the usual column defence stalling.
But I'm not at all near top coach :D
Posted by PurpleChest on 2014-02-28 12:49:31
It is all so subjective though. Without names, and even with, its hard to quantify and identify such risk taking. Who do we take as a benchmark? I consider myself a risk taker, certainly with elves, and think it mostly pays off. With other races, less so. I would say the same of coaches better then me, PeteW for one, who is reckless when needed and yet methodical and controlled at others, even with his elves.
Perhaps there are limits on the level of play mere risk control and statistical analysis can take you to and beyond that you need the spark of creativity and maybe even intuition to take your play further.
My own perception is that there is often a certain moment, i nickname the 'banzai' moment, where it is time to get in ther and get it done, be that attack the ball, step up for a full contact defense, smash into a wall and push/risk advance the cage or whatever. Spotting these banzai moments makes for good solid play. Great play is forcing these banzai moments to occur.
Perhaps there are limits on the level of play mere risk control and statistical analysis can take you to and beyond that you need the spark of creativity and maybe even intuition to take your play further.
My own perception is that there is often a certain moment, i nickname the 'banzai' moment, where it is time to get in ther and get it done, be that attack the ball, step up for a full contact defense, smash into a wall and push/risk advance the cage or whatever. Spotting these banzai moments makes for good solid play. Great play is forcing these banzai moments to occur.
Posted by Verminardo on 2014-02-28 13:35:55
PC, for what it's worth, I would place both you and Pete in the category of the "best coaches" who certainly take risks, even big risks, in the "banzai" moment but don't generally rely on it to win their games. I'm not going to name the coaches who inspired this blog post, as that would be rude.
Posted by Throweck on 2014-02-28 13:43:41
Does anyone remember the programme 'Bansai' on channel 4 about 10 years ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qMpoKh3pU'Bansai' = link
We turned the progamme into a half hour drinking game. Great fun.
Anyway, agree with PC. For me it's about making the opponent take more risks than you sometimes. However I am not the best coach so ignore my advice and watch above clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qMpoKh3pU'Bansai' = link
We turned the progamme into a half hour drinking game. Great fun.
Anyway, agree with PC. For me it's about making the opponent take more risks than you sometimes. However I am not the best coach so ignore my advice and watch above clips.
Posted by gamelsetlmatch on 2014-02-28 14:19:39
Are you talking one off games or tournaments?
Posted by Verminardo on 2014-02-28 14:31:17
Both.
Posted by gamelsetlmatch on 2014-02-28 15:05:52
As you are going through weighing risk against safe, to me, risk is 3+ rolls or 1 die(also -2d, -3d) blocks and safe is 2+ or 2 die+ blocks.
In one off games, I find that I am more likely to try many 2+ rolls so that I can position my players to be able to progress various players through their development. The fact that I am rolling 2+ is nice but the more of these that I include in a turn, the more risk I am adding to that turn. In the end, I feel that I need to take these risks so that I can put together a team that will ultimately help me to avoid so many risks when it matters (tournaments)
In tournament games, where I don't have a wealth of experience, it seems that your team should pretty much be where you need it and looking for those SPP doesn't mesh with having a successful drive and the risk becomes time management/attrition.
In one off games, I find that I am more likely to try many 2+ rolls so that I can position my players to be able to progress various players through their development. The fact that I am rolling 2+ is nice but the more of these that I include in a turn, the more risk I am adding to that turn. In the end, I feel that I need to take these risks so that I can put together a team that will ultimately help me to avoid so many risks when it matters (tournaments)
In tournament games, where I don't have a wealth of experience, it seems that your team should pretty much be where you need it and looking for those SPP doesn't mesh with having a successful drive and the risk becomes time management/attrition.
Posted by Synn on 2014-02-28 15:11:10
Provo is the most risk tolerant coach I know.
__Synn
__Synn
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-02-28 15:42:20
I admit it. I take lots of risks.
Then I cry when they undo my play. Unfair dice. :'(
Then I cry when they undo my play. Unfair dice. :'(
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-02-28 15:45:00
This edition rewards and encourages risk more than LRB4. I find the newer coaches are more likely to go at the rolls. Those of us brought up in LRB4 tend to be more conservative.
As a vast generalisation. I always get a bit miffed being beaten by a risk monger, but it's certainly more competitive these days.
As a vast generalisation. I always get a bit miffed being beaten by a risk monger, but it's certainly more competitive these days.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-02-28 15:50:22
@goo I just think the standard of play is higher these days as most active coaches have now played many games. I rarely encounter coaches who just bomb an unprotected player with the ball up the pitch - a few years ago, this would be regular enough occurrence.
Also with the addition of wrestle, fend, juggernaut, grab, the positional side of the game is far more important. Before you'd spam stand firm, guard and be next-to-impossible to breach. Now you can unsettle a drive with the right positioning of some fend or side step etc.
/0.02c
Also with the addition of wrestle, fend, juggernaut, grab, the positional side of the game is far more important. Before you'd spam stand firm, guard and be next-to-impossible to breach. Now you can unsettle a drive with the right positioning of some fend or side step etc.
/0.02c
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-02-28 16:06:00
So, that’s an interesting view, Chainsaw. One I almost entirely disagree with.
Firstly, on FUMBBL, I think the average standard is recovering. It used to be a measurable amount higher than it is now, and about 12-18 months post Cyanide we got a slow influx and the quality dropped. We are certainly recovering, but we aren’t there yet (in my opinion). Also, the LRB6 route of least resistance does not encourage new coaches to play good basic Blood Bowl.
As for the positioning point, again, interesting. I was only having this conversation with a TT coach last week. The new rules encourage risk because games are over as a contest sooner and the rules encourage more loose positioning and knowing when to press the (more encouraged) risk button. Clawpomb is an example (everything will die, I need to accelerate my plans because they will. When do I take the gamble to pop the ball before I die? Now? Next turn?), but there are several others that are more subtle (Loner, Juggs, High Kick, TV in general, I could bang on, but I won’t). I actually feel that the positional side of BB has diminished. I play this game for positioning and for strategy, so I would love it if I thought you were right. But the old careful Guard placement and DP avoidance has made way for the shortened timeline of competitiveness I alluded to above. I simply do not see games remain positioning battles until deep into the second half that often, nowadays. Skills like Fend and Grab are so poor you seldom see them (unless you’re a Box only Clawpomb worrier), and Wrestle and Jugs just leads to further risk taking (my Elf now has another Leaping weapon; less positioning, more banzai! Ooh, my Big Guy can sort of blitz reliably now, let’s risk Skulls).
My perfect game is the one where I out position my opponent by 2-5% every turn until in the latter stages of the half, I’ve carved an opening because his drive has collapsed under iterative problems his decaying position has caused. Too many GFIs, no blocks to my several, ball exposed, however that is manifested. I feel I get that less often in CRP.
I make no judgement on whether the game is better or worse for it, I just think it’s different.
Firstly, on FUMBBL, I think the average standard is recovering. It used to be a measurable amount higher than it is now, and about 12-18 months post Cyanide we got a slow influx and the quality dropped. We are certainly recovering, but we aren’t there yet (in my opinion). Also, the LRB6 route of least resistance does not encourage new coaches to play good basic Blood Bowl.
As for the positioning point, again, interesting. I was only having this conversation with a TT coach last week. The new rules encourage risk because games are over as a contest sooner and the rules encourage more loose positioning and knowing when to press the (more encouraged) risk button. Clawpomb is an example (everything will die, I need to accelerate my plans because they will. When do I take the gamble to pop the ball before I die? Now? Next turn?), but there are several others that are more subtle (Loner, Juggs, High Kick, TV in general, I could bang on, but I won’t). I actually feel that the positional side of BB has diminished. I play this game for positioning and for strategy, so I would love it if I thought you were right. But the old careful Guard placement and DP avoidance has made way for the shortened timeline of competitiveness I alluded to above. I simply do not see games remain positioning battles until deep into the second half that often, nowadays. Skills like Fend and Grab are so poor you seldom see them (unless you’re a Box only Clawpomb worrier), and Wrestle and Jugs just leads to further risk taking (my Elf now has another Leaping weapon; less positioning, more banzai! Ooh, my Big Guy can sort of blitz reliably now, let’s risk Skulls).
My perfect game is the one where I out position my opponent by 2-5% every turn until in the latter stages of the half, I’ve carved an opening because his drive has collapsed under iterative problems his decaying position has caused. Too many GFIs, no blocks to my several, ball exposed, however that is manifested. I feel I get that less often in CRP.
I make no judgement on whether the game is better or worse for it, I just think it’s different.
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2014-02-28 16:47:40
The greatest luck pusher on this site gotta be Tarabaralla, perhaps he is even the mystery coach who spawned this thread? :D
Posted by Verminardo on 2014-02-28 17:08:03
@ Overhamsteren: Hehe. :D
@ Purplegoo: The type of play you describe appeals to me and I enjoy watching it, but it turns out that I am very average at it, so I find myself at the losing end about half of the time. I've kept on trying for some time now but even though I feel my understanding of the game has improved, it doesn't really translate into a notable improvement of win. So, yeah, let's see where some more BANZAI will get me.
@ Purplegoo: The type of play you describe appeals to me and I enjoy watching it, but it turns out that I am very average at it, so I find myself at the losing end about half of the time. I've kept on trying for some time now but even though I feel my understanding of the game has improved, it doesn't really translate into a notable improvement of win. So, yeah, let's see where some more BANZAI will get me.
Posted by SpacemanJames on 2014-02-28 17:26:27
TBH there is next to no difference in coaching level on fumbbl.
There are your 3 types of coaches -
1) Bad coaches, these guys are just plain crap.
2) Not bad coaches who play for fun, these guys generally play any race and don't cherry pick to much.
and
3) Not bad coaches who play to win, insert here your min-maxs cherry pickers and top tier only race players.
There are your 3 types of coaches -
1) Bad coaches, these guys are just plain crap.
2) Not bad coaches who play for fun, these guys generally play any race and don't cherry pick to much.
and
3) Not bad coaches who play to win, insert here your min-maxs cherry pickers and top tier only race players.
Posted by Malmir on 2014-02-28 17:44:31
I pretty much agree with what the two purples said. A good coach should try to minimise risk as much as possible and try to win by forcing the other coach to take risks through good positioning. However, a good coach should also be able to take the risky play when it is the optimal move given the circumstances of the match. Spotting when this risky play is the optimal move, is the key to being a good coach in my opinion.
Posted by Beerox on 2014-02-28 20:34:02
Risk intolerant here.
Unless I have a regen team, I'd say the first goal is to make sure I'm not completely out of the game prior to turn 4. Then I'll start playing ball.
But I play Khemri a lot, and unless regen is off I'll be in the game... provided I play like an old man does his taxes. Avoid risk, make opponent take risk.
Unless I have a regen team, I'd say the first goal is to make sure I'm not completely out of the game prior to turn 4. Then I'll start playing ball.
But I play Khemri a lot, and unless regen is off I'll be in the game... provided I play like an old man does his taxes. Avoid risk, make opponent take risk.
Posted by The_Provocateur on 2014-02-28 21:25:51
I like rolling dice and seeing my guys die/scoring touchdowns. Also, long walks on the beach.
Posted by Grod on 2014-02-28 23:46:53
Interesting blog. I am certainly one of the more conservative coaches - just look at my passing statistics - 312 for, 730 against, 0.83 per game. I just can't bare the thought of letting the ball go in the air, a hand-off is usually the most risk I can stomach.
In fact, passing statistics is probably a good way to determine what kind of coach someone is.
I think it is important to use teams that match your style - which is why I have tended to avoid the pointy-eared type teams, and struggled with them when I used them. If I take something away from this blog, it is that I should learn to take more risks with those pointy-eared type teams.
In fact, passing statistics is probably a good way to determine what kind of coach someone is.
I think it is important to use teams that match your style - which is why I have tended to avoid the pointy-eared type teams, and struggled with them when I used them. If I take something away from this blog, it is that I should learn to take more risks with those pointy-eared type teams.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2014-03-01 11:11:28
I get the point about taking more risks to beat better coaches. In poker, if you are evenly stacked against Phil Ivey (or any world class player) heads up and you go all in every hand, you have a 40% shot at winning, which is more than if you try and play a normal game.
Posted by Kam on 2014-03-01 18:49:51
I beat you Grod: 68-495, 0.12 Cp per game. ;)
But I grew up playing with Stunties, so it's understandable. Since they tend to fail about anything, to me it's 90% of very conservative play, and, when you see an opportunity, 10% of pure madness (TTM to -2d blitz the BC, blitz him in a cage with a tree, do 5 dodges in a row to surf a key player, etc).
But I grew up playing with Stunties, so it's understandable. Since they tend to fail about anything, to me it's 90% of very conservative play, and, when you see an opportunity, 10% of pure madness (TTM to -2d blitz the BC, blitz him in a cage with a tree, do 5 dodges in a row to surf a key player, etc).
Posted by Smeat on 2014-03-02 07:21:16
When I go back and re-watch play like this from a "successful" coach, more often than not I find that their position sets up a "safety net" to some degree, so that if the risk fails it does not fail spectacularly. And, quite often, Ag 4 can even recover and have another shot (altho' perhaps a longshot).
Other times, the risk is a "do or die" - they see less % in maintaining the conservative play (for one reason or another), so "now or never" is the right call, percentage-wise.
When most coaches, myself included, try to mimic this "risk taking" approach, either that safety net is flawed (if not entirely absent) or we are panicking and not relying on our own ability for successful conservative play, and any bad luck becomes a game-breaker.
It's not true every time, but I want to think that's the diff, altho' I may be giving some too much credit.
Other times, the risk is a "do or die" - they see less % in maintaining the conservative play (for one reason or another), so "now or never" is the right call, percentage-wise.
When most coaches, myself included, try to mimic this "risk taking" approach, either that safety net is flawed (if not entirely absent) or we are panicking and not relying on our own ability for successful conservative play, and any bad luck becomes a game-breaker.
It's not true every time, but I want to think that's the diff, altho' I may be giving some too much credit.