Posted by BillBrasky on 2012-07-08 13:01:05

Harsh words.

I agree with you though.

I think on the internet people will always be extreme munchkins.

My take is live & let live. If people do this for their ego, or enjoyment or whatever, that's on them.

I can only be responsible for my behavior.

The closest thing in LRB 4 like this, was the Academy team of khemri with like 12 dps :)

Posted by SillySod on 2012-07-08 13:26:05

"Alot of activity" = 1 thread?

Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2012-07-08 13:28:31

Calcium, you are stoopin g to my level ;) It did exist in LRB 4, then it was 0 reroll teams with a leader. It wasn't as blatant, but then again the box wasn't as popular.

As I said in my box, I find it a little sad that people can get any sort of enjoyment knowing that the only way they can win is to stack the odds so firmly in their favour that only a complete nuffling can stop them. If they really are that pathetic then they deserve our sympathy. Because playing that way will never actually get them out of that cycle. They will never become better coaches or even better people. It is tragic that these people feel that unloved that they must seek solace in making sure that they win an anonymous online game to try and make their lives feel worthwhile.

Personally i like to earn my victories. I like to chat with the people I play with and have a banter that can only come about if both participants feel that the game is fair and fun.

As I said

"The sort of coach that plays as these sorts of teams is probably the sort of coach that if they had a child (and sadly there has still yet to be a law passed insisting on a competency test before people are allowed to be parents) would challenge their new born to a game of scrabble and then ridicule the child when it lost. They will challenge old age pensioners that are wheelchair bound to a triple jump competition and not even have the god damn courtesy to build a ramp. They would probably only ever play eye-spy with Stevie Wonder."

Posted by Toombs on 2012-07-08 13:29:36

There is definately some truth to the fact that some people get overexcited by their high CR, even to the point where they if they loose, will stoop so low as to put opponent on some obscure black list. Anyways ranked is a cherrypickers safe haven and black box is for smashing newbies with clawpomb madness.
No matter what i hope new players can withstand their losses and start fouling some more when a pile on dude is down, foul them...

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-08 13:35:47

Yes, this level of metagaming extremism happened in LRB4. See tournaments, of all levels.

It was less cool to hate it when it was just winning (infact; it was applauded in front page news posts, much backslapping occurred). Now it's winning with killing, far more people notice.

Posted by xnoelx on 2012-07-08 13:35:52

Hmm, I'm torn. I disapprove of minmaxing, and I don't & wouldn't do it. And it might be sorta nice if no-one else did. However...

No-one's forced to play in B. There are always going to be that extreme munchkin/powergamer/beardy/cheesy/metagaming kind of players, in any game, and any rule change will just mean they change how they achieve that style, rather than preventing it.

Would it really be that bad if that division was left as an environment for that sort of player to meta to their heart's content, and everyone else played in R & L, or even, hopefully, S? Not disagreeing, it's a genuine question.

Posted by Calcium on 2012-07-08 13:37:54

Normally I'm neutral on issues like this, I play the way I enjoy and don't judge other on how they play...but...the example I use (and others like this) are way above normal levels of anal....I commented on Freaks post before, but I hadn't come across that team. Freak's post makes a lot more sense now :)

Posted by Niebling on 2012-07-08 13:38:53

While I agree that min/max teams like the one mentioned is beyond lame and if I played one myself I would be bored out of my skull after one match, I dont like that your ( freak_in_a_frock) trying to make it about being a good or bad person.

You have no idea whom is behind the screen, it could be that handicapped guy that spend his hole life being picked on and now needs somewhere to get back at the world. It could be the president of amnesty international for all you know.

Keep it about the game, keep it about the rules. Min/Max is within the rules of the game, and the problem is with the format of B not the rules.

So if the site owners deems this to be a problem for the site, something that scares away the new bloods, then change the rules of the format.

Someone suggested somewhere, that new team cant face team with more than X matches or something, if the site wants a "fix" for this "problem" they will make it.

The people of the community just needs to keep "pressure" by posting blogs and other stuff, and then sooner or later if deemed needed it will change.

If not? go play ranked :) and maybe add somekind of warning? when you make a B team, like dont dive in here unless your prepared for the following.... with the new LFG system players on the site have tons of option for finding a game anyways.

Posted by xnoelx on 2012-07-08 13:47:20

+1 to Niebling.

I'm pretty new, & I don't play in B, precisely because the second sentence on the help page for B reads "It is a highly competitive division that is not for the faint of heart" and I knew that that wasn't what I wanted to do, & that it'd be full of that sorta style. However, the first sentence does include the phrase "random FAIR matches" (my emphasis). That might want amending.

Posted by anisdrin on 2012-07-08 13:49:38

Calcium and BillBrasky are not suspicious of being pixel-huggers and they find this team unacceptable. That says a lot.

@Niebling
Ethics is not behaving by the rules. If you think that you are behaving in the right way simply because "it's in the rules" I think you are wrong.
The kind of behavior that we are talking about here is ethically reprovable for sure.

Posted by Calcium on 2012-07-08 13:55:03

Well Neibling, I agree with keeping personal attacks out of the equation, as I commented in Freaks post (Freak did say he was having a bad day!)

So taking the personal issue out of the equation, this level of minmaxing is anal as **** right?

As for the 'striking back at the world that wronged me' bollocks...that works a charm doesn't it? Ask all those dudes that commit violence after they have been wronged!

#2 wrongs don't make a right

Posted by happygrue on 2012-07-08 14:15:50

Freak's blog was a reaction to my blog:

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=128845

Which is also where the "X match cap" Niebling references was discussed.

[/shameless self promotion]

@Calcium: It was a blog that called out this very team, though more about the targeting of rookie teams in general rather than any particular tactic. Legend elf/Clawpomb is just one way to min/max against rookies.

It is interesting to see blader in the top 15 at the same time this team is getting so much attention. I think that speaks out pretty strongly against the people who are saying it isn't an issue or that it doesn't work. But as Christer pointed out in his blog it would probably create other issues to fix this one (though I would be fine with that because I hate this problem!)

Posted by xnoelx on 2012-07-08 14:17:17

I take it back, I was torn. Now words like "ethics" & "wrongs" are being used, I'm amused. You say they're "anal as ****", I'm sure they would say "efficient & utilising obvious tactics", possibly motivated purely by the fact that other players are doing the same thing. And it seems like most of the people unhappy about this "issue" are highly experienced, high CR coaches themselves, who this doesn't directly affect, apart from if they CHOOSE to make a new team, in B, which gets mauled. And yes, people are put off B by this, for example me. But there are still 3 other divisions for the likes of me to play in.

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-08 14:32:42

Here's the current Conference sprint list.
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/sprint.html?sprintId=39

Can anyone be bothered to check out the leading teams and see how many are min/maxers.
If so please let us know. ;)

Posted by Niebling on 2012-07-08 14:46:43

@xnoelx I make new teams in B all the time, and I have played vs a min/max team like once or twice. So I am not even sure the problem is that big, maybe if every one was doing it, it would be, but they are not... yet. Again I am not sure its even a problem, the box is the box, and yes fix that fair comment to say teams with equal or close to Team Value :)

@Calcium minmaxing is a kind of gaming I personal find very... [insert bad word], its clearly not something the game designers had in mind, but then again BBis not designed solo for a Box environment.
Whenever you have a set of rules some people will try and bend them, play on the edge so to say. This is true for all aspect of life not just games.

@anisdrin I had a proffesor once that wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Computer-Games-Miguel-Sicart/dp/0262012650">the book</a> on ethics and gaming, so I have spend a long time debating in class what ethics is.

Why is it you find playing a min/max team is so ethically reprovable?
Is he hurting people? (Pixsels are not people ;))
Is he trying to ruin other people fun? maybe but maybe its not his intentions maybe this is just how he has fun. Bending the rules and pissing people of doing so. In that case a topic like this is just more fuel on the fire that he will warm himself by.
Who are we to judge? you can say is wrong according to your moral standard, but people are not the same.

Unless its officially stated that playing like that is against the moral conduct of the box, its not ethically wrong.

It might be a jackass thing to do, but people are jerks. Count yourself lucky that the jerk % in BB is rather low compared to the internet at large.

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-08 14:58:48

Koadah;

As a disclaimer, I like that you make the effort to do the sprint stuff. Will never be anything to do with me with the lack of games, but that it exists is good. This is also outside of the general forum wind up stuff that you seem to enjoy (whether you mean to or not), just a general point that touches on these statistics, amongst others. If anything, I'm just using these stats as an example of something that annoys me generally.

One of the great errors of this (or any other debate that I see around this or similar subjects around the internet) is just dropping statistics and opening your palms in a 'well there you go, proof!' manner that some do. Statistics need context and knowledge of a situation. I will _always_ push for some numerical input, it's vital. But never alone.

For instance; there was a debate for a while that Khemri and Necro were 'too good' in LRB5 thanks to the 'statistics' of a handful of local TT leagues of circa 10 games. The truth is that the sample was too low and the coaches too average. People will tell you that Orcs are poor at tabletop resurrection type events because their statistics are so average. The truth is simply that they're a popular, beige race that come in the box, and to a newcomer they're much more attractive than something left field, and their numbers are dragged down.

The difficulty, then, in this or other LRB6 debates is _just_ relying upon statistics to tell a story. Statistics are, of course, a very important strand to any argument or position, but it's vital that you don't just decide that's it, and fin. Waving 'Ooooh, the BBRC say tier one should have a ~x% win ratio, but I look at Box win % and it's y% - therefore it's wrong... NERF!' that I see occasionally is _exactly_ the sort of one eyed, too quick thinking that got Khemri where they are today, a position that all agree is nonsense. Similarly, just dropping a load of 'sprint' statistics (not saying they are to be disregarded or bad in any way, understand) and suggesting they tell the story alone that answers the minmax question is a red herring. Blackbox is a division of many coaches of various talents doing many different things. Rubbish coaches that have seen the Nurgle minmax, try it, get fed up / fail are prevalent, and it torpedoes the win %. Very few players try Elves, they're great, they come up against little tackle, up it goes. There are a hundred strands with a hundred stories.

Anyway, I looked. Top 5 are a very good coach, a tier one team and three minmaxers arguably involving at least one very good coach. So, from this tiny sample and tiny interest, do we compute that minmaxing is the same / better (since it's #1) as being very good or running tier one, or do we dig a bit deeper?

More importantly than any of that, it's no fricking fun playing them. And that's the main issue.

Posted by Endzone on 2012-07-08 15:15:17

Notwithstanding extreme examples like Blader's '[PMV] Kill Your Heroes' (linked in this blog) most coaches will aim for a level of team efficiency (I don't see many 16 player squads or 8 reroll teams) so what is within the spirit of the game and what is not? Are we supposed to buy more rerolls than we think we need, buy positionals that aren't really worth it, more players than are likely to get on the field and pick weaker skill combinations? What level of team efficiency is considered acceptable? At the moment everyone seems to have a slightly differnt view so one coaches 'fair team management' is another's 'disgusting min-maxing'. Is it only a problem when combined with clawpomb?

It would be great to get some views from admin or even better Christer. Even if no house rules for the box are to be introduced it might help if the official blackbox site etiquet on clawpomb and min-maxing was clearly established so there is a common understanding that either everything is fair game or what acceptable team management is and what is taking the p*ss.

Posted by Woodstock on 2012-07-08 15:28:35

It is fair game, that is what Christer would say as well I think.

Posted by Fightingmongoose on 2012-07-08 15:33:51

Team management is a big part of the game, and how one goes about it can be a big part of the BB experience. I agree with endzone that one players good management can anothers horrible min/max. Myself, I play all my teams differently. I have an undead team that has a no-cuts policy, because it's part of my fluff for them. I may very well start a Dwarf team of only longbeards just to see how it plays. And then again, I might want to try a super TV efficient Zon team just to see if it's as easy as it looks.

Don't get me wrong, I have been frustrated by the exact team in the OP, as well as the aforementioned Amazons. However what rules could we all agree on that wouldn't ruin some people idea of a fun team.

It seems to me that Min-Maxing follows that old line about pronography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Posted by Emeric on 2012-07-08 15:42:36

I think the issue pointed out by calcium is that most beginners/newcomers are not activating at high TV. Then, ultra-low-TV efficient teams get to face easier matchups.

Experienced coaches facing the linked team will probably manage to sneak their way to a victory or a draw, but newcomers will probably be disgusted to face such a team with brand new teams. And that's a problem for the renewal of our community.

The fact that LRB6 rules made TV-efficiency (TV-kill-efficiency) more frequent is another debate (that has been debated way too often already).

Posted by BooAhl on 2012-07-08 16:14:30

I think like Niebling, that if it ain't against the rules, don't point fingers and call names but try to instead get the opinion of the site behind your opinion of clawPOMB at low TV our the issue you have. If there is enough people misslikeing a certain behavour and if you get Christer to see your side a new scheduler will come.

That being said, I am happy to sign of on a petiton to minimize the "Rookie team hunting".

Posted by blader4411 on 2012-07-08 16:54:55

Didn't Christer already post a blog regarding this?
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=3

Unless you can change his mind, your petition won't go anywhere.

Posted by Winni on 2012-07-08 17:06:56

Lol you were amongst those who started the rule abuse and now you whinge only because someone is taking it to the extreme?

You created the monster, now you got to live with it. I hope a lot of your players die.

Posted by BooAhl on 2012-07-08 17:26:37

I hadn't seen that blog. It sums it up pretty well I guess. And I guess Box is about being competetive. So I guess the question is what being competetive means to you?

Posted by Nelphine on 2012-07-08 17:28:01

i believe minmaxing is only a problem if it can prey on new coaches to the site, who may not know enough to realize what might lurk in the box. Imagine coming from a 30 person TT group, where you are the best; and you've been to several tournaments and played another 20 people and still did very well. If you come to this site, join box because harder games are exactly what you want, and encounter crazy minmaxed teams for your first three games. It would be a very easy step to think this site is nothing but minmaxing, and promptly quit.

New teams getting destroyed? If its a coach with lots of experience on this site, no problem. New COACH getting destroyed? TERRIBLE problem.

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-08 17:32:45

@Purplegoo

If I ever claimed any of the data was proof of anything then I am sure that someone would have put me straight pretty quickly.

It seems to me that whenever someone makes that mistake someone else always puts them straight.

The description on the Sprint pages tells you what they are. On Cyanide I am much more careful to remind people what the Box is and what the Sprints mean. But on Fumbbl I expect more people to understand how the Box works. Though It seems that even with 100s or 1000s of Fumbbl games many still don't.

As for "it's no fricking fun playing them". The last time out I beat both the top two teams. I might well lose most games vs min/maxers. But, If my one remaining player can still get a -2D on the ball carrier in turn 16 to save the match, even after a few dodges & GFIs I'll still consider it a good game.

I'm not even sure if I should call them min/maxers. People min/max at all TVs and we call it good team management. I like to call these low TV teams 'bushwhackers' ;)

Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-08 18:11:36

yes, blader's team is "bloody stupid" and a "travesty", but - sadly - is entirely legal, so we can't really complain.

:)

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-08 18:22:00

Our Canadian post machine is, at the end of the day, not wrong. :)

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-08 18:27:14

We can complain if we like. ;)

Posted by WhatBall on 2012-07-08 18:29:43

Just saw said linked team take apart a 5 game old team from a new guy who has been here barely a month.

Do you think he wants to stick around and keep playing on FUMBBL? Maybe, but will most? Not likely. This nonsense is killing the Box and severely hurting FUMBBLs ability to grow its player base.

Time to end this disgusting practice with a revamp to box if we all want FUMBBL to be healthy.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-08 19:00:40

There's no problem with low TV minmaxing a team per se - I've yet to see any low TV minmaxed team do particularly well in a league (if anyone has any data to the contrary I'd be interested), and tournaments tend to either prevent such team-builds through the rules or are progression with higher TV teams involved anyway.

The problem arises when you mix minmaxing with TV-matching. Unless TV-matching were done away with (hah!) then some form of (TV-based?) penalty to minmaxed teams may be necessary to create the fair matchups Box purports to offer. The problems occur in defining "fair" (I'd say it was a game where either team could, on paper, have a reasonable chance of winning, not counting CR in any way) and defining minmaxing (see Fightingmongoose's comment reference prawnography).

There are plenty of other options - it might be better to allow new coaches a 5 to 10-game grace period whereby they can turn down box matches, thus preventing the newbie coaches from being picked on by such teams, then give them a "here be dragons" warning which they have to acknowledge before continuing.

Posted by Jeffro on 2012-07-08 19:05:00

Rated 1 for "tough guy whining"... y'all should read your stuff out loud before you post it. I'd rather read fifty more "Top 15" blogs than see anyone else complain complain complain... REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT... It's non-constructive complaining.

Bring back DP. Run a team of thralls. Hunt blader's ponies. But please stop the whining...

Posted by blader4411 on 2012-07-08 19:06:25

Speaking of top 15...

Check out the OP's top 15 recent matches: all ClawPOMB Chaos.
What was that I heard about a pot calling the kettle black? :P

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-08 19:22:24

I wouldn't say that going head to head vs other heavy bashers is quite the same as bushwhacking undeveloped teams at a TV where you are most likely to find new coaches.

Jus sayin.

Posted by PigStar-69 on 2012-07-08 19:35:24

I have something to say !

Bollocks !

Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-08 19:40:44

i get the point about blader scaring the noobs.

bad blader.

maybe B should have a new warning: "beware the Brony Blader, as he will pomb u in the ass"?

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-08 19:41:06

Piggy, in a thread getting progressively worse, you're nothing if not a breath of fresh air. :)

Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-07-08 20:53:10

I was of the impression he is worse in ranked at the moment, some real retro cherrying.

Posted by Astarael on 2012-07-08 21:11:57

+1 to Endzone and +1 to Grombl

Calcium was one of the major influences on [B] becoming the bash fest it has, along with jimmy, stud etc. Amuses me to see him complaining about how people go about bashing in the [B].

I agree entirely with Endzone, at what point does team management become team minmaxing, it's hard to draw a hard and fast rule for this. Some people are against negatraits, thus if they ran Chaos Pact the only players on the roster without them are Maruaders, is that minmaxing?

And as for 'scaring off new players', new players shouldn't be in [B]. End of. When you create a team it specifically states [B] is not for newcomers.

Whilst I do see minmaxing in [B] as a problem, it's a community created problem. People went full bash mode (yourself included Calcium), then people started refining it and trying to be as efficient in it as possible so when they got drawn against other bashers they would win. Now the bash mentality has lessened a little in [B] it may come to pass that minmaxing slowly drops off being no longer required. I doubt it though, because the next 'bash cycle' is always just around the corner in [B].

Posted by The_Murker on 2012-07-08 21:18:00

"You'd have to bring pretty strong guns to convince me that it'd be a good idea to have less games being played."
-Big C

There are numerous threads where Christer ends with a statement like this, and the status quo lovers read it as "end of discussion." But that's not what he's saying. I salute another blog/post saying this issue is a problem and a threat to site health. But there is a very good saying that military commanders love to hear their people using. "Come to me with a solution, not a problem." And I know guys have some ideas. And some of you put ideas out there, and the blader's try to beat them down. But they register slowly in the site conciousness. Keep trying.

What I'd like to see though is a small group of long time FUMBBLers who have each other's respect get together, perhaps over some irc chat sessions, and come up with a fleshed out solution to present to Big C on their own time. Then, he can either tell you he can program that, or he can't, or he dosn't want to. You are smart guys. 4 of you could agree on something you think would work better. If math or coding was a hobby that would be even better. Write the code forumla for him.

I think there is a problem with such teams.. the only thing I can think of is to make it worse to force it to be changed. CR band wagon. Not much fun so far.

Posted by Calcium on 2012-07-08 22:02:19

lol Astarael, I've always been 'full on bash mode' and made no bones about that. What I don't do however, is manufacture my teams to give me the most chance of winning at all costs. I trade with the other killers in the box. My 50 games against Bill attests to that.

with that in mind, blaming me for the problem of minmaxing is ridiculous. I've never done it nor encouraged it.

Posted by Endzone on 2012-07-09 00:20:11

If a solution to Blackbox minmax killer sides is wanted, wouldn't it be relatively simple to introduce a 'Team Strength' (TS) matching system as has been done in Ranked. Most importantly the TS for the clawpomb type combinations of skills would be higher. Coaches could still create these teams but they would be less effective because they would be matched against higher TV teams (with similar TS). This would have the effect of lessening the interest in creating such sides.

If you also wanted to level out Amazon teams at low TV you would also need to add something to TS for dodge and/or blodge, although I am not sure this is such a big issue because these Amazon teams will just beat you (maybe), not destroy you.

You could take this as far as you want addressing each of the min-max favourites, e.g. reducing the TS of rerolls, extra players, lesser skills etc.

Any valuing system will have it's flaws and coaches would set about trying to find an advantage in any system but by doing this the advantages gained could be somewhat reduced. Periodic updates could address any glaring weaknesses in the system.

Whether we want to do this kind of depends on whether we want team management to be about fluff or competitive advantage. Personally I rather like the challenge of trying to get the 'best' team out of a given TV, but others want a 'fair' TV for any given skill choices. I am happy with the current challenge the Box presents but appreciate implementing the sort of change outlined above may make it more enjoyable to a wider audience.

Posted by xnoelx on 2012-07-09 01:39:44

Saying that this kind of team in B is bad for the community doesn't make it true. Unless someone can provide hard evidence of this, which to my knowledge doesn't exist, there is no way to know if new players in B are disgusted by this kind of team, or inspired by it to do the same thing. The number of teams in B of each of the 4 flavours of chaos would suggest that a lot of people have seen this style of management/minmaxing and decided that they want do the same thing.

On the other hand, if they don't like it, it's easy to avoid. Just don't play in B. And on the other, other hand (what? I play Chaos teams, I'm allowed to have 3 hands, I don't even need a double), the only way to avoid all the people complaining about other people's style of play is to not read blogs or forums, i.e. not engage with the existing community, which seems to me to be a much worse threat to the site...

Posted by lizvis on 2012-07-09 10:47:17

so you go from the great defender of handicapped children to this?

maybe you missed it, but theres a team that has 'Short Bus' or 'Shortbus' in its team name that i saw recently. perhaps you should start up a righteous crusade against them?

Posted by BillBrasky on 2012-07-09 11:49:06

As I suggested to Calcium earlier...

Perhaps our fix is to jump on the blader wagon.

If Jimmy, Ken, Calcium, myself, etc. all make newb sniping teams, will that not "push the competitive envelope?"

My min/maxed beasts vs. yours?

Nuffle forbid someone make a new team... BAD IDEA!

Posted by MattDakka on 2012-07-09 12:33:52

"On the other hand, if they don't like it, it's easy to avoid. Just don't play in B."
Boring and old suggestion, I don't like Ranked either, because there are noobs, cherry pickers and farmers.
I like the idea of an automatic match, I don't like Clawpomb spam.

Posted by Calcium on 2012-07-09 16:21:22

Lizvis....

You're so bitter over that whole (dead and buried) issue you'll ram it in wherever you can. Most comments have been on the issue at hand (regardless of opinion) except yours. Let it go and ignore me, as I do with you.

Posted by xnoelx on 2012-07-09 16:42:05

A boring and old suggestion, to a boring and old complaint...

Posted by lizvis on 2012-07-11 23:18:47

when you respond to someone, you're not ignoring them

and i intend to shove that issue in your face every chance i get so no one around here forgets what a hypocritical buffoon you really are