FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 14:16

YOU MADE HIM A FAVOUR.
A CR 170 coach vs a CR 147 coach accepts a fair-tv game, then sneaks 160 tv into the game, and you made him a favour.

You're a fucking joke.

_________________

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 14:19

Yes, because, as you can guess, I have almost no CR to gain from that game, only to lose.
I play for the CR, as you know, not just to waste 1 hour.
And you a coward, all talking, never playing vs me.
The only thing you can do, apparently.

MerryZ

Joined: Nov 28, 2005

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 14:23

It is just that different rules apply on different games.

Only thing that is constant is that dakka is underdog and oppo is overdog.

And fair game is when some special terms are filled, they also change game by game depending on mood or d8.

Some would argue with logic but we all know it has no place in these here.

_________________
Kaptain Awasoam, Dicer of All Men and Women and Children and Puppies.

Last edited by MerryZ on %b %27, %2022 - %14:%Jul; edited 1 time in total

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 14:25

JanMattys wrote:

Ok. You're right. It is all perfectly logical. You're also an hypocrite and a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Technically speaking, I suppose heâ€™s not really a hypocrite if heâ€™s not telling people not to do it and he is only taking steps to prevent people from doing it to him. Wink

Human beings are all made differently.

In a â€œcompetitiveâ€ division I suppose we have to expect people to play to the rules. "Competitive" has different meanings I guess.

I was chatting to a coach recently about the Holy Roller. I said â€œof course, they changed the rules after thatâ€.

Weâ€™re not going to change the rules no matter how terrible. So, there it is.

Maybe Matt should just change his name to Al.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 14:31

koadah wrote:

Technically speaking, I suppose heâ€™s not really a hypocrite if heâ€™s not telling people not to do it and he is only taking steps to prevent people from doing it to him. Wink

Exactly! I would have been hypocrite if I expected my opponent to play vs me a second game, but I didn't expect this. If he doesn't play I will be fine. Hypocrisy is demanding things you are not willing to do yourself.
My rule doesn't forbid to overdog at game start, my rule just says that I will never play again vs a guy who did it.
Anyway, honestly, when I wrote that rule I was thinking about people inducing Star Players (Bomber is the most common offender), Wizard, Bribes, not about Mercenary Rookie positionals (who are overpriced, by the way). I added them as exception, so the rule is clearer now.

koadah wrote:

In a â€œcompetitiveâ€ division I suppose we have to expect people to play to the rules. "Competitive" has different meanings I guess.

I wrote my GF rules for transparency. If I wanted to be hypocrite I would have not bothered to write them.
By writing them people are free to point out logical inconsistencies, if there are some.

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 15:46

Holy crap guys...My last post was 16:42 on page 20 and we are almost to the end of page #23 going back and forth with matt over a single match.

So now this is why I hate BB2020...it is not different on the forums that any previous edition. Pages on end of bored coaches taking runs at each other.

_________________
Comish of the:

Java

Joined: Jan 27, 2018

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 16:01

PainState wrote:

So now this is why I hate BB2020...it is not different on the forums that any previous edition. Pages on end of bored coaches taking runs at each other.

Not sure how which edition of the rules we're playing has any impact on this occurrence, anyway it takes a lot of stretching and squinting to "both sides" it Laughing

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 16:07

Java wrote:

Not sure how which edition of the rules we're playing has any impact on this occurrence,

I was obviously mislead, misguided, lied to and deceived that BB2020 had solve all our issues and nirvana is where we were headed. That FUMBBL forums would be thus transformed into a peaceful and tranquil place of equal exchanges of thoughts and ideas to perfect this new nirvana.

How wrong I was.

Laughing

_________________
Comish of the:

Java

Joined: Jan 27, 2018

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 16:10

At least now you know, and knowing is half the battle! Razz

_________________
Vlad Von Carstein's door-to-door evangelist

Garion26

Joined: Nov 28, 2021

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 17:53

Kondor wrote:

Well, how about this. Look at the large TV gaps and what you can get.

Morg - Worth it. Take him every time you can
Deeproot - +2 MB probably take him whenever you can
Bomma - Worth it Grab him if you have 50k to spare
Hackflem - worth it. Take him almost every chance you get
Wizard - Worth it. Grab it every chance you can
Bribes - If you have bribery and corruption take it as often as possible.
Grak and Crumbleberry - Take them if you cannot afford Morg or Deeproot
Ivar and the new Amazon star - Probably worth it for the special rule.
Akhorne - A good, cheap choice in many situations
Stars with Saws - Worth it if that is your style of play.

With all these options to truly even the odds in large TV gaps, why are we limiting TV at all? At least pick a much higher limit and let the inducements do the job of discouraging team growth. As planned, allow redraft at any time.

For now not focusing on your second point as it's a separate (and interesting) issue.

Curious about the first part which was what I was commenting on. By design inducements should be generally 'worth it' or at least in specific situations (i.e. chainsaws are a better choice against blodge elves less so against dwarves.) Do you think the team with the lower TV and an induced star from the petty cash difference is generally considered at an advantage against the bigger team?

Are people in C who are convinced stars are OP purposefully taking the max TV differences in offered matches as they feel the star they can induce would make them favored in the matchup, over taking a match against a same TV team. I don't think so (at least I'm not, and don't seem to see it happening with my C opponents)

Optimally a petty cash only induced star (or any inducement) should make the teams closer in performance. In CRP/BB16 stars were not good enough to close that gap so they were rarely taken compared to other inducements. I don't think we've overshot in correcting that error (barring the big three.)

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 19:29

I think, while most stars in 2016 were slightly overpriced (Morg should have been ~380, making him around 15% too expensive), in 2020, it's gone the other way. Most stars are about 10% underpriced - the worst offenders are more than that (morg is arguably 20% undercost, even after the FAQ increased his price.)

Most stars, in a random one off game, are not overpowered. The problem comes when you have teams that decide they want a star and build around them. If you know you'll use hakflem every game, then you don't bother building another ball carrier. This minmaxes your team to an unhealthy extent (in my opinion). The reason its unhealthy is that once you realize you can do this with a star, the fact they are undercosted, means you can NEVER build a player that will be as good as they are - so there is no incentive to even try. So you are stuck with a choice- build a worse player to replace the star (why would you choose something worse?) or avoid letting your team develop so much that you won't be able to induce that star.

In 2016, because stars were overpriced, this decision never occurred. You COULD build a player that would better than any star, it would just take time. So if your team developed, you could say 'it's fine, I'll develop, because eventually I can get something better - the star is just a stop gap while my team is new/bashed/unlucky'.

So while stars didn't get used a lot in 2016, they were healthy for team development, and fit a purpose.

In 2020, they are no longer healthy. An optimal team DOES include a star - since they are better than any player you can develop - but since you can't roster them, that means if you want the best team, you have to arbitrarily stunt the development of your actual players in order to keep the star.

Chrisdekok

Joined: Aug 09, 2021

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 19:55

It's probably not wise to step right into the flames but I will do it anyway.
In my experience inducements are strong and usually make up for having lower TV.
I'm a mediocre coach at best but still have some success by picking and scumming when I can.
I have played a lot of matches with Ogres and have not been able to maintain a positive win ratio even with my usual picking and scumming tactics. I recently created a low TV Ogre team that have a record of 7/3/0. Part of the explanation for this is that there are more inexperienced coaches playing at low TV but inducing Morg/Deeproot + Bomber every match is great!

Kondor

Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 20:44

Garion26 wrote:

Kondor wrote:

Well, how about this. Look at the large TV gaps and what you can get.

Morg - Worth it. Take him every time you can
Deeproot - +2 MB probably take him whenever you can
Bomma - Worth it Grab him if you have 50k to spare
Hackflem - worth it. Take him almost every chance you get
Wizard - Worth it. Grab it every chance you can
Bribes - If you have bribery and corruption take it as often as possible.
Grak and Crumbleberry - Take them if you cannot afford Morg or Deeproot
Ivar and the new Amazon star - Probably worth it for the special rule.
Akhorne - A good, cheap choice in many situations
Stars with Saws - Worth it if that is your style of play.

With all these options to truly even the odds in large TV gaps, why are we limiting TV at all? At least pick a much higher limit and let the inducements do the job of discouraging team growth. As planned, allow redraft at any time.

For now not focusing on your second point as it's a separate (and interesting) issue.

Curious about the first part which was what I was commenting on. By design inducements should be generally 'worth it' or at least in specific situations (i.e. chainsaws are a better choice against blodge elves less so against dwarves.) Do you think the team with the lower TV and an induced star from the petty cash difference is generally considered at an advantage against the bigger team?

Are people in C who are convinced stars are OP purposefully taking the max TV differences in offered matches as they feel the star they can induce would make them favored in the matchup, over taking a match against a same TV team. I don't think so (at least I'm not, and don't seem to see it happening with my C opponents)

Optimally a petty cash only induced star (or any inducement) should make the teams closer in performance. In CRP/BB16 stars were not good enough to close that gap so they were rarely taken compared to other inducements. I don't think we've overshot in correcting that error (barring the big three.)

I agree with you. I don't think the designers overcorrected with stars. Even the big three. Those are close enough it is still pretty even. Again, I love to field stars and I love to have them fielded against me. It adds flavor.

But yes. There are several people who avoid playing underdogs because they fear the inducements. I would say many coaches avoid giving away more than 140k in inducements because they do not want to give the other coach a wizard or stars. Now people even gripe about 50k because they will face the bomber.

Kondor

Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 20:52

Nelphine wrote:

I think, while most stars in 2016 were slightly overpriced (Morg should have been ~380, making him around 15% too expensive), in 2020, it's gone the other way. Most stars are about 10% underpriced - the worst offenders are more than that (morg is arguably 20% undercost, even after the FAQ increased his price.)

Most stars, in a random one off game, are not overpowered. The problem comes when you have teams that decide they want a star and build around them. If you know you'll use hakflem every game, then you don't bother building another ball carrier. This minmaxes your team to an unhealthy extent (in my opinion). The reason its unhealthy is that once you realize you can do this with a star, the fact they are undercosted, means you can NEVER build a player that will be as good as they are - so there is no incentive to even try. So you are stuck with a choice- build a worse player to replace the star (why would you choose something worse?) or avoid letting your team develop so much that you won't be able to induce that star.

In 2016, because stars were overpriced, this decision never occurred. You COULD build a player that would better than any star, it would just take time. So if your team developed, you could say 'it's fine, I'll develop, because eventually I can get something better - the star is just a stop gap while my team is new/bashed/unlucky'.

So while stars didn't get used a lot in 2016, they were healthy for team development, and fit a purpose.

In 2020, they are no longer healthy. An optimal team DOES include a star - since they are better than any player you can develop - but since you can't roster them, that means if you want the best team, you have to arbitrarily stunt the development of your actual players in order to keep the star.

If you are stunting your team for a 10-20 percent benefit on one player it is a crutch that will bite you more often than you benefit from it.

In a division where matchmaking is based on TV you will rarely have the inducements to get a star. If this is true in tournaments the most competent players will also keep their TV low and you don't get the star when you need it most.

The things I dislike most about 2020 are the new kick off table and seasons. However, stars are one of the things I think they got right. I love it.

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2022 - 20:56

Kondor wrote:

The things I dislike most about 2020 are the new kick off table and seasons. However, stars are one of the things I think they got right. I love it.

Weirdly, the Kick-Off table (apart from Officious Ref) is one of the 2 things I like of BB2020. It is not perfect, but way better than old Kick-Off table, imho and from my particular perspective.
About the Stars, I want to talk only about the ones I faced (anecdotes, I know), and Bomber seems to be absolutely too good and too cheap. Morg is very good but, relatively speaking, worse than Bomber, as cost-effect (moreover, I didn't face Morg as often as Bomber). I faced Griff too, but he was not decisive (although he made the game hard). Akhorne, it doesn't look OP, but a hit-or-miss cheap Star Player. It can knock down a ball carrier with a lucky 1d cagedive or maybe score a TD but it's super squishy. Glart was ok too for the price. Zolcath was ok too. Fungus is ok as well. So far, most of the Stars I faced looked quite balanced. I understand, on the other hand, that in different formats inducing Morg, Griff, Hakflem can create issues, especially if you can do it every game and if you induce more than one of them.
edit. the special Star Players' abilities were not always implemented when I faced them, so please take my impressions with a pinch of salt.