Mateuszzzzzz
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:18 |
 
|
What 3 next to each other allows you is pushing without using blitz. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:23 |
|
| straume wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | [
I seem to remember thinking that a gap, as shown in the OP, made it easier to get around the corner? But the backs of the envelopes I scribbled this on have long since gone in the bin. |
That would make the "open right" a much bigger issue, so that gap seems a bad choice imo.
And indeed Malmir and Licker it is possible to chainpush over to the other side, but it does take 3 or 4 pushes which is like 100 times more tricky than 2 pushes. Also note that considering the second line of players it is a bit tricky pushing the most rightern player on LOS from the side or from behind so my experience is that the sneaky Woodies try and go through the lines. If you start with the most leftern player it is a long way of chainpushes to get around on the "open right".
Hmm... I can see this is badly explaiend, but you follow? |
I don't follow, it doesn't matter where you start, you need the same number of pushes to get into scoring range no matter what. Going to the 'open' side means you avoid the back line entirely and has zero bearing on the front line.
I cannot understand why anyone would push into the teeth of your set up, the only way to force it is to have one or more players you can line up who are harder to push (big guy and one side stepper for example). But from what I understand about the assumption in the OP none of that is the case.
Frankly if you have only one player they can push then the best setup is a solid line across the pitch 2 or 3 back which they cannot push into or through or move around.
But it's really all very dependent on the assumed position/skills/players remaining/....
So, a range 11 player (WE catcher) needs 2 pushes (or 3 if no sidestep) to be in scoring range. Explain how it matters which side of the 3 man los they push to?
Also explain why leaving extra bodies around the push zone makes it more difficult for your opponent to set up his chains. This seems to only apply if it limits their 3ds, but for st3 sides that's not likely the case.
Maybe the math is buried in this thread somewhere, sorry though, I can't be assed to dig it out. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:30 |
|
| Mateuszzzzzz wrote: | | What 3 next to each other allows you is pushing without using blitz. |
This is also true, you can do a double chain push from those sets.
Why a gap of at least one is good, but 2 makes it basically impossible for the opponent to use a 2nd of your players for anything. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:33 |
|
Generally, of course, players adjacent to each other are easier to push, or it is easier to create pushes using them.
In the specific case noted, the issue is that if you put a space between the middle and right (as you look at it) LOS player, you can then get outside of the two banked lines of defence more easily. i.e. That is worse than leaving that contact, where you have to find more 5/9 blocks (a push on either die) to move the guy along, and it's better to just dodge through.
Of course: the winner is maths. My back of the fag packet calculation, for instance, has Antithesisoftime's formation as worse than 'hands across the endzone', if I am reading his lineup correctly. I may not be, as I say, the code is troubling my phone screen. I have yet to calculate anything better than the defence straume has brought us back to, or at least not for the specific problem we're talking about. 6 years ago, I had the time and hunger to find out via calculation, I'm less inclined now.
It's interesting how the forum response to the necro is quite different to the original posting all that time ago. But anyway, I hope it's helped someone!  |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:41 |
|
| Malmir wrote: | This isn't my strength so I'm interested in this thread. What's to stop someone just chaining a catcher etc across in this set-up so they can just run down our right hand side more or less unopposed?
| straume wrote: | So...I saw the link at Reddit and suppose it is time to Necro the thread. This is interesting, and something I am not good at. Joe posted this as the best way to do it.
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
C= WE catcher assuming the pushes work out. To score from there he now needs: 4+ catch, 4+ dodge, 3+dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,8% with a reroll, 24,1% without
However, if you do like this:
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X C _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
The same WE catcher would need 3+ catch, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 3+ dodge, 2+ dodge, gfi, gfi, gfi = 39,2% with a team reroll, 21,169 without.
So...the second setup is better. Or am I missing something or miscalculating something here? |
|
With either of these I see them going down the right side of the pitch and only having to make 1 2+ dodge or a few 3+ dodges but definitely not going through the second row really. |
_________________
 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:43 |
|
I am struggling to see how - perhaps that's the code / phone thing. Could you extrapolate? I think getting outside on the right is harder than dodging though the defending lines, and was numerically when I last did it? |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:48 |
|
I'm still not really following...
No matter the set up you choose, the opponent needs to move his catcher forward 2 places. That's nominally 2 pushes (1st) and any other non skull/both down result (3rd). Beyond that they can perform additional pushes to reduce GFIs/dodges depending.
The thing is with a clumped set up, if they fail to get the push on early dice, they can still regroup and use your next closest to chain (or double chain) for an additional attempt at the pushes.
Otherwise, the dodges past one player 4 back or 2 up from the endzone are identical. Maybe I misunderstood something about the OP formation though, but it seems the back 4 players serve exactly zero purpose as positioned. That's my question, not if this formation is better or the same as the 'standard lazy all manz back' formation many of us lapse into.
There are also some cases where reducing or removing 3ds factor in, but for the 'rookie' teams presented I don't believe they actually matter. Though even forcing one extra block to move someone else off the los to get 3ds might be worth it. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:51 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | I am struggling to see how - perhaps that's the code / phone thing. Could you extrapolate? I think getting outside on the right is harder than dodging though the defending lines, and was numerically when I last did it? |
I do not understand how anyone can say this.
Dodging past the first line is the same no matter where you choose to do the dodging.
If you push right you can dodge past the lone guy on the end (which is the same as dodging past any other player on that line) and then completely ignore the back line.
Assuming there is no tackle/diving tackle/shadowing... In which case the formation is probably better as they either deal with that player on the end, or try to move through more TZs to avoid it. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 19:55 |
|
I suppose that's the beauty of having the board in front of you. Code or play creators lose something in translation. Although it didn't seem to be a problem the first time around, has the site code changed?
Yes, interacting with both lines of defenders is the key, of course it is. If I am misreading the code, as I said above, there may be one too many vertical spaces involved. It's 100% not as hard as we're making it!  |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 20:10 |
|
I am using this one. I did quite a lot of thought to it. Could be false though.
Please crack it. How does it compare against the 3 top options decreibed before?
---X-X-X---
-X--X-X--X-
-----------
-X--X-X--X- |
_________________
 |
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 20:11 |
|
Nerdbird or licker, you might be right, but please show me how you get your MA9-piece in the right position outside to the right. (C in this new chart).
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _| _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| C _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _ |
|
|
straume
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 20:13 |
|
Hmm...this will do: Still easier than dodging through the lines. Doable to get him here?
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ C| _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _ |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 21:35 |
|
That chart is different from the OP chart. In which case I agree. OP chart 'appeared' to have the back row more than 2 rows behind the middle row.
Apologies if I sounded a bit dickish, but I was heading home for lunch and was just baffled because it really seemed we were not looking at the same diagram, or at least not reading it the same way.
Row 12 - Three players set to far left.
Row 11 - Open
Row 10 - 4 players one off the side, double gapped.
Row 09 - Open
Row 08 - 4 players one off the side, double gapped.
Is that correct? |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 21:41 |
|
| straume wrote: | Hmm...this will do: Still easier than dodging through the lines. Doable to get him here?
_ _ _ _ | X X X_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ C| _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _
_ X _ _ | X _ _ X _ _ X| _ _ _ _ |
It's probably doable, but as alluded, it's probably a wash or worse requiring the extra pushes.
My question now is how a quick snap affects this as the opponent can then blitz off the top right corner and get a free run to the end zone.
Also side step might make the above diagram easier. Also leap makes it all irrelevant (leap makes most set ups irrelevant I think).
So it's worth it to me to consider the 'likely' cases in facing a one turner beyond the simple 'rookie one turner' scenario.
None the less, I think that if you have one DT player, or if you have one SS player you can probably use these formations to greater advantage because you can at least force the opponent to take a more difficult path. In other set ups it's easier for them to avoid that player. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 21:53 |
|
I think we're finally on the same page. I'm glad my eyes were not deceiving me and the on-page setup is the same as my in-game one. For the record, the OP (whilst it was only supposed to be a conversation starter, I think, at one point) wasn't different in the respect you talk about. As discussed, media (code, play viewers) are difficult off board, and a 15 page thread is not easy to consume as a newcomer many years later. All accepted.
One niggle I will throw in - this is one beautiful BB example where we're not talking in terms of something 'probably being a wash' - whilst general turns can be debated to death, there is a wrong and a right answer here, because it's just maths. Pushing a guy around the corner is just plain worse (iirc). And it's nice to actually have an on field situation where we can be binary.
As for factoring in skills and kickoff results in general, of course you could go down that road, but it grows the scope exponentially. A solid base is the important thing to get right first, and then it's much, much easier to make adjustments on the fly in-game.
I've spent no time on bghandras's idea (and, I'm sorry, I'm unlikely to myself in the near future), but there is a formation QS probably really hampers. QS is going to hamper anything, but if a formation were shown to have better maths without QS but worse with it, you'd likely take the risk and use it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Raising a Thrall wit...
Search
