Posted by lizvis on 2013-03-29 08:43:02

always score in the first half. theres no guarantees with KO rolls when you don't score. most of the time when you score in the first half, the worst case scenario is a tie/overtime.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-29 09:38:09

I tried to ban someone for doing that, sadly it didn't stick :(. It's so dumb, I can't justify it as a valid tactic.

Posted by roante on 2013-03-29 10:04:50

harvestmouse: So you consider that sort of play is unethical? Interesting, never thought of it. Are you aware of something like brief description of such "situations to avoid"? A link would be highly appreciated.

Posted by Chainsaw on 2013-03-29 10:27:59

Really HM? That's a sad reason to ban somebody.

I have done it before, a handful of times. When you're playing a cpomber team and all their cpomb is out, most of it in the KO box, it is a tough judgement call but I do recall being glad for doing it at least 1 time as a lot of my opponents hitting power remained sidelined and he was left with just a few players for the 2nd half.

It may have backfired before too... I don't remember that so well though.

Posted by JanMattys on 2013-03-29 10:45:45

Reasonable tactic, even if I don't consider it a winning strategy.

Basically, I don't like it because I don't believe in the "sacrifice the known for the unknown" philosophy, and you are trading a 100% sure TD for the "reasonable chance" of having some people out and being able to capitalize on the numerical advantage.

The way I see it, "take the TD" is the best option in such a situation. As lizvis pointed out, in BB if you lead 1-0 at half time you are pretty much guaranteed you won't lose. Worst case scenario is a tie, and that's a pretty good situation in my book.

But as much as I don't think it's the best strategy, it is a tactic with its own merits, and I think it would be very wrong to ban a coach trying it out.

Posted by Endzone on 2013-03-29 11:37:49

It would be unusual for the TD not be be the best winning attempt but I can see that in an extreme example not scoring could be a genuine consideration for the best winning play. I would consider this a reasonable tactic, though not perhaps the most 'fun'.

I suspect the most common application of this tactic would be when killer players are Ko'd, in which case it could reasonably attract the attention of the admin if a reasonable attempt to play for a win was not being made.

Posted by Dan-Da-Man on 2013-03-29 11:52:25

Wow how can you try and ban some one for that? I have done it few times and every time paid off. What next ban people for stalling its a tactic just like not scoring.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-29 12:01:52

Playing to lose. By refusing to score, it would have averaged. 1.5 players less back. The difference between 12-10 for the second half.

By not scoring he lost 1-0. I considered it not attempting to win the game. I still think I'm right with this (also he received the first half).

The coach whined and whinged about it, and took it to the blogs actually. So I being the fair and just admin I am put it to an admin vote. Sadly every other admin voted against me, and I reluctantly had to release him from his cage.

A glum day, a very very glum day!

Posted by awambawamb on 2013-03-29 12:11:19

every opponent player in the KO zone gets a 50% (4+) chance to come back on the pitch with every "regen" roll.

since with CRaP ruleset winning is mostly achieeved by outnumbering the opponent, much like in warhammer, that could be considered as a tactic for play-to-win.

tl,dr:

win = much more probable if I have more players than you (but not always)

allow less comeback rolls = potentially reduce the opponent's players

-therefore-

it's play-to-win (but risky).

Posted by B_SIDE on 2013-03-29 13:07:04

I can imagine this would be a valid tactic if there were a lot of key players in the KO box, especially high AV players. There have definitely been times when I've scored early or late to try to get/prevent extra KO rolls. But I've found, through careful research, that it is easier to win games when you score TD's, so I'd stick with that most of the time.

Posted by Wizfall on 2013-03-29 14:55:19

I really don't understand how it can be considered unethical.
And i consider unethical quite a lot of things that are allowed (low TV blodge zons or low TV heavy CPOMB team with maybe just one good BC for example).
It's a bet, like stalling one more turn while it's not very secure to do so.
I don't think it's a good strategy though, except if the opponent has a heavy CPOMB team and lot of KO.
In this case it's the good strategy, 2 consecutive turns on the LOS and giving one more chance to his CPOMBer to be back is well worth a TD.

Posted by the_Sage on 2013-03-29 16:09:43

I think it's a sensible play mainly when you've already stolen the ball, and you think you can prevent a tie with your number advantage second half.

Posted by the_Sage on 2013-03-29 16:49:53

As for your ban decision HM, I think it was correctly overruled. I think choosing not to score because of KOs is a risky decision, but not a guaranteed bad one. By your logic a coach who sets up all mens should also be banned? Or someone who doesn't setup against Blitz!? Or against quick snap?

It's taking a chance and living with the outcome, like almost everything in BB.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-29 16:59:43

That doesn't even make sense the_sage, your examples are very poor. This was about a clear refusal to score, that cost him the game. The chances that it would have worked in his favour were so poor, it was just the same as playing to lose in my opinion. None of your examples do that (a black and white yes/no scenario) that is the difference between winning and losing.

Simply; he received, and had the opportunity to score. I think his oppo had 6 in the ko box, and 6 or 7 on the field/reserves (IIRC). If we work with averages, the oppo would have 9/10 (and the ball at 0-0) vs 10/12 with a 1-0 lead.

He lost the game 1-0.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-29 17:00:59

However that said, chainsaw's example (where you are receiving the second half and there's more of a chance of keeping killers on the sidelines) is viable of course. I'll still try to ban you mind ;)

Posted by koadah on 2013-03-29 17:42:25

You're a zealot Mouse. ;)

Posted by pythrr on 2013-03-29 18:28:02

the mouse's ban is correct

:)

Posted by Naru1981 on 2013-03-29 21:39:42

had an entire half to win the game.
so saying his refusal to cost cost him is rubbish.
playing the numbers game is all.
was a risk which failed.

same as a 5+ dodge to score but decide to go to O/T instead of taking the risk.
you lose in O/T. So you should be banned as you refused to score when you was actually able to?

Both are examples which failed

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-29 22:48:01

No, the other coach had an entire half to defend the ball for the draw he shouldn't have, and to shuffle forward with the chance of getting the win. Even with basic linemen you can do that.

To say his refusal didn't cost is rubbish and a lack of understanding of the game/situation.

Posted by roante on 2013-03-30 12:02:53

Thanks for all the comments.

It is interesting how the "ban or not to ban" flame started :-) To be honest, I'm a bit hesitant to accept harvestmouse's reasoning. In my interpretation, the whole issue boils down to the fact that "if there is a possibility to score, a coach *must* score at all costs".

It is quite common (at least in my experience, but as I stated, I'm quite new here) that my opponent goes up until the score line but does not carry the ball in for the very last turn. If that is an accepted way of playing to achieve a 2-1 result (i.e., a coach may decide to do other things than scoring easily), my gut feeling is that this tactic is valid as well.

Imagine a 0-0 standing at the end of the first half, where a coach has the ball and could easily score (without dodging, etc.). Is the coach forced to score, or if he/she decides to perform a 3 dice block before scoring for example in the hope of getting rid a key player from the pitch, is that also considered as an action to ban the coach? I could hardly imagine that.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-30 18:21:54

Massive difference. In one scenario the coach 'intends' to score and has the path mapped out before him. In the other the coach doesn't 'intend' to score before the half is up and is relying on certain events happening.

I can see the high amount of killers being in the ko box, and if you are receiving in the second half, though I've never done it nor think it is optimal. However if you are kicking in the second, I can never justify the tactic.

Posted by Severedunit on 2013-03-30 23:48:24

A ban? Seriously? Clearly in his mind it was a valid tactic and he was looking for an advantage to take into the second half with which to secure a win. Whether we see it as foolish(probably) or not, it doesn't come off as 'playing to lose' by the loosest definition. Thank goodness for the admin vote. Oh and I'd also like to thank HM for his willingness to have this conversation with us, I appreciate the added understanding of the inner-workings of Fumbbl that this brings.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-03-31 08:29:11

Nah, I didn't try to ban him, not for that. That was poetic licence, just retire his team! The problem is, there has been and will be playing to lose, just as there are fixed matches.

Some are obvious, some are not. You can disguise fixed matching or player to lose. So on the other side of the coin, we are responsible for not doing actions that can be deemed either.

As for making it public, the coach did that anyway. And of course I wouldn't name names.