31 coaches online • Server time: 09:48
* * * Did you know? The most casualties in a single match is 21.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
the_cursed_one
Last seen 2 years ago
Overall
Rookie
Overall
Record
0/0/0
Win Percentage
n/a
Archive

2016

2016-01-24 20:07:42
rating 3.4
2016-01-08 17:53:31
rating 5.6

2014

2014-03-11 20:49:34
rating 4.5
2016-01-24 20:07:42
25 votes, rating 3.4
TV difference in box.
You might disagree with me but I think for one that these 250+tv inducemtents in box need to stopped the quality of the match is just going to be awful for one side the majority of the time with the bulk of box team being bash.
Its not about gettiing maimed off the pitch as playing up laods to elves is surely going to end in defeat aswell.
Yes sure sometime the underdogs win and inducements can make up the difference.

But the site rules state you must play to win, well I am sorry but playing to win 700tv or something stupid vs most teams is a logistical nightmare for anyone other than elves/skaven/slann. These kind of matches belong in [L] not one of (B) games.
I will be refusing to play any game higher than 250tv out of prinicipal from a normal box activation. I don't care how many teams get retired I will keep playing and will not back down. It is unreasonable to expect me to commit 45mins to an hour of getting destroyed by a much bigger team.
Rate this entry
Comments
Posted by NerdBird on 2016-01-24 20:16:49
You are right. Most of those teams are insane killers and yeah, the wizard and some of the other inducements may land you a tie or even the occasional win but look at the box score and tell me if you really won or tied?

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-01-24 20:17:46
Try some vagasil.

I say that because my last game I was up 500 tv & I got slaughtered.
Posted by NerdBird on 2016-01-24 20:22:30
Bill is saying...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIZuptssqog
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-01-24 20:23:35
I suggest you don't play box then. If you refuse to play, you'll eventually be perma banned.

Looking at your last match I do sympthasize. Simply I don't play box at all because that would ruin my evening too. However can you come up with a workable alternative?

It's certainly not TV itself. TV works terribly in box and that's the main reason you suffered; pity you can't see that..........which I guess answers my own question. No you can't.
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-24 20:28:20
Yeah it can happen especially if the underdog is the better coach.
But I play in BB to avoid picking which I know I do. Just the scheduler likes to spit that kind of game out once in a while and its like I have been picked with no choice in the matter. At least ranked cherries can opt out.
Heck even a clause which if both teams agree box games can be unscheduled if the TV difference is over a set size as both coaches deem it to be an unfun and unacceptable game. As what we all want is a fun game of BBowl, kill some menz and score some touchdowns. If both people don't think they are going to have fun why make them play each other in a ridiculous match-up.
Posted by SpecialOne on 2016-01-24 20:36:47
I know the feeling. When I made a similar post about TV in the box, it got hammered.

If you and I end up playing, and the value is way off and you refuse to play. You lock down my team and some of my playing time. Not fair by you I think.

I do agree that too big diff in value can spoil the game, but then again so can a MinMax team. Maybe a setting where the lowest value coach outside 250 TR can take the match or not, could be though about?
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-24 20:40:13
Well as an ex staff memeber you should know I can take my bans when they are handed out fairly reasonably I would like to think.
If that is how it goes so be it, but some times you jsut have to stand against something when you feel strongly about it.
Also if more people who agreed with me took a stand it would force change as if multiple people are in agreement then it has to be taken into condiseration that the current system in valid.
And for the activate multiple teams 'fix' I enjoy playing one team at a time like alot of coaches so why should I ahve to perform a work around to play a fair game. If the rules changed so I had to activate multiple teams I would embrace it because everyone would have to do it, but why should i do it to dodge large tv matches vs someone else who just activated one team. Most of the opponents of these games I have played have said its unfair match up aswell.
Posted by animefreak2599 on 2016-01-24 20:43:15
Solution: embrace your inner bghandras and never play a team past 29 games.
Posted by easilyamused on 2016-01-24 20:48:23
A couple of things I need to point out here.

1. If you play B then you need to accept that these kinds of games will happen every now and then. If you don't like it then don't play B.

2. How come I didn't see this blog being written 1 game before when you had the nice big TV advantage?

:D
Posted by thoralf on 2016-01-24 20:51:46
> Try some vagasil. I say that because [...]

There are many possible interpretations here.
Posted by MattDakka on 2016-01-24 20:53:50
Activate many teams, it's unlikely you will find huge TV gap matches.
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-24 20:59:02
Unless people decide they agree with me and all want it changing then these kind of games can stop happening.
And that game was a tournament game they are different and what you would expect in a tournament.
Posted by akaRenton on 2016-01-24 21:07:18
Stop playing box then. I don't play for my own reasons, but complaining your feet are wet when you've gone swimming is a little redundant.

League, Ranked and Stunty Leeg all offer alternatives.
Posted by Harad on 2016-01-24 21:11:14
I sympathise, but when you pull it off, it somehow makes it all worth it...

https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3767300
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-01-24 21:13:26
Hmmmmm to me, you're not making much sense, and what you're trying to combat is a band aid fix to a bigger problem.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting bar both coaches can call it off if they want, which........yeah I can't see many overdogs doing that unless they're pressured into it. And if they don't there's going to be a fair bit of 'tension'.

Also there's the logistics of 'how' these games are called off. I wouldn't be happy as a staff member given this 'extra' job because of a few tantrums.

Lastly 'taking a stand'........there's all the members and Christer and all though he does listen.........taking a stand frankly carries as much weight as a gnat's willy.

I think, like always you need to calm down, think things through and come at it from a different angle. It is a problem of sorts, I do agree at that. But I think any formula that's interesting and not forced is going to have unfair match ups.
Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-01-24 21:18:08
Wow!!! I feel old: that was 1990 & it was Massengil, not Vagasil (yeah, I don't use the product obviously)
Posted by JellyBelly on 2016-01-24 21:21:28
Sounds like you should probably stop playing Box, if you're not willing to accept the odd TV-skewed game. It's as likely to be in your favour as not ..
Posted by fidius on 2016-01-24 22:57:50
Cause and effect.

TV diff caused by low Box population
Low Box population caused by bad actors playing exclusively Bash
Bash dominance caused by CRP

Treat the symptoms by encouraging friends to play Box, and playing more non-Chaos races
Treat the cause by fixing CRP
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-01-24 23:01:43
Min/Max'ers Complain to all menz.

I personally don't see problem with any TV match up. I think its fun to play these kind of games, and gives a different perspective to the game, that is otherwise intentionally avoided by some coaches. One guy went from abusing the system, to hardly playing on here after the changes. Either you are part of the problem, or part of the sollution.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2016-01-25 00:21:25
Play ranked, green light everything and take the the first game offered
Posted by pythrr on 2016-01-25 00:22:34
when the going gets weird, the weird get pro


Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-25 04:34:02
Whats min/max got to do with anything? i havent fired healthy players and strive to keep a 13man+roster with humans and always aiming for 16 so more like menmax than min/max.
See thats the thing keggie, some people like those games other don't and I don't think they should happen outside if tournaments unless both coaches actively agree to it. Bloodbowl is about fun and Box is about competitivness i find those types of match ups are neither
Posted by Cavetroll on 2016-01-25 05:17:31
You're only real choice is not to play Box. Carrying out your threat will just get you banned.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-01-25 06:39:52
I didnt mean you were min/Maxing Cursed. This is how the problem started and this what its come to, because of Min/Maxers . Im sorry I wasn't clear on my post.
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-25 07:05:24
Yeah i understand that the problem needed fixing, just gets really tedious having to play these match ups when you don't enjoy them and your team of 100+hours of effort get paired in stupid match up to protect rookies(who needed the fix don't get me wrong) when your team isnt that far from rookie level. I was at 1260tv I did have a few skilled players sure but they where outskilled by quite a degree, and sure inducements do help some of the time, but they are a bandage for lack of skills and you just can't always patch that hole in your team caused by the imblanance.
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-25 16:11:44
In my opinion, the problem seems to be that you and your rookie team could face a team that is within your TV range but has 150 played matches and contains 2 legendary killer and 9 skilless lineman. There are various examples for that sort of team development; you can find several legends that used it in the past.

Since this happened a lot, these teams that have rookie TV and a legendary amount of matches need to be matched up with other teams that have the same (or a similar) amount of matches but may have a different TV to get beaten up. Obviously this works also for teams that are not min maxed but have a certain amount of matches that qualify them for "bigger" opponents.

It has been said before, if you don't want to meet that kind of situation, stop playing in the box.
Posted by Azure on 2016-01-25 16:43:57
I accept the occasional bad match in the box as par for the course. I am not happy about it - and sympathize with cursed about this. However, I honestly do not see any way to improve the situation - and accept it as it is. I certainly understand it makes rebuilding teams tough. My skaven team, Burn Notice, really has struggled to rebuild due to a few bad matchups periodically coming up. Still, on the balance I like the box.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-25 18:34:36
Some people who do not play box should probably realise that this is far from an irregular occurrence. In fact, in a certain timescale, barring "ogre activation", it is an occurrence of most draws.
Posted by NerdBird on 2016-01-25 19:01:35
Thank Gobbos that they activated and could go up 1000TV against a nasty Nurgle team and I got to go against a Chaos team 70 TV higher..... shakes head.

https://fumbbl.com/p/blackbox?op=scheduler&r=2016-01-25+04%3A30
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-01-25 21:02:01
@Afro many of us don't like the Cherry picking of Ranked. If he prefers Box, the answer isn't go to Ranked.

I starting to be much more interested in longer runs for teams. I've had the same trouble as Cursed with my Slann. They get pulverized every time I use them. Its part of the game I guess. If I am going to use a team that can't bash with the Bashers I need to expect some pain.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-01-25 21:03:11
To add a point. Cursed only uses one team. That teams gets matched up with big teams. When I put in multiple teams with my Slann, they rarely get picked.
Posted by bghandras on 2016-01-25 22:34:24
Ah, yeah, excellent point. It is advantageous to activate as many teams as possible to help out the scheduler.
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-26 10:42:32
@ keggie:
I hear what you say. If you don't like cherrypicking, just don't do it. I feel that most coaches that say "I don't like cherrypicking" really mean "I like to kill all menz and don't like that other coaches don't want to have all their menz killed". But that's a different issue.


And if you want to avoid R because of other coaches using their right to make their own decisions, and if you don't want to face big TV differences in B because of minmaxed teams (to me, a different way of cherrypicking), go find a league that suits your playing style.

As you said before, minmaxing is the original problem. But you can't rule out minmaxing without extending the TV range for minmaxed teams.

Posted by bghandras on 2016-01-26 11:06:47
What is possible is Greenlighting multiple old teams, one at high, one at mid TV. Only of course if you have those, which can be a challange.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-26 14:00:16
What people really mean by "I don't like cherrypicking" is "I dislike sitting and going through a coaches' teams, skills, and players as well as the coach's page and previous matches to ensure that I am not, in fact, entering a completely one-sided match". I don't either, I don't want to spend 15-20min making sure the game I agree to play isn't a complete waste of time for both coaches.

The dichotomy of ranked and boxed into partitions where one side is "kill all menz" is, at best, misguided, and at worst, flagrantly unwise. If you would like my proof, feel free to go and look at a few of the entrants in the Warpstone Open Qualifiers, who's teams would feel right at home in the box environment you envisage.

Box has its own methods of gaming the system to cherrypick: minmax within a certain range, rinse and repeat, combination of both, and then simply single-activating a regen cpomb spam team at a point where they will overwhelm most opponents all "work" to an extent. They're not without pitfalls either.

As to the "activate multiple teams" solution. This is not, in fact a solution. Because it relies on mass appropriation, rather than individual. If just one individual in each draw is single activating a high TV team, and it is a numerically low draw (unavoidable past 00:00 BB time) then it doesn't matter how many teams you have entered. This is exasperated by people activating low tv teams inside rookie protection in the same draw (either because that's all they have, or because they are avoiding med-high tv for whatever reason).

Most of the "solutions" offered to individuals are untenable because they rely on the compliance of a community, not a singular entity.
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-26 14:26:26
"What people really mean by "I don't like cherrypicking" is "I dislike sitting and going through a coaches' teams, skills, and players as well as the coach's page and previous matches to ensure that I am not, in fact, entering a completely one-sided match"."

This makes no sense. If you don't want to waste your time, just don't do it. Activate a few teams and accept the first offer that is within your preferred TV range. You don't think the bot is better in scheduling a non-one-sided match than a coach spending 10 seconds in viewing a team roster, do you?

To me, not playing in R because of "cherrypicking" makes sense only for two reasons: - you don't want to play a team that was built by cherrypicking and is abnormally strong (which can happen in B, too, but needs a lot of luck)
- you have a team, that is built to kill, and don't get the amount of matches you would like to play because your offers are refused more than taken


Sure there are teams in R that are pretty dangerous (as seen in the WO) and still get matches. But that doesn't prove me wrong, it just proves that disliking R because of cherrypicking is not that common... And it is definitely no proof that there is no cherrypicking with low TV min maxed teams in B.

Still, the cherrypicking-discussion doesn't belong in this blog and is a different issue.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-26 14:40:42
Congratulations on misconstruing the point of my post - once you accept that cherrypicking exists in ranked, you must, if you wish to play in ranked and not get "picked", jump through hoops: You must see if the team you are playing are actually tv-effective or merely built naturally, you must check to see if the coach's last games show a particular pattern of playing low-skill opponents etc. Since the box scheduler "flaws" are made apparent by TV, one would have to be completely devoid of intelligence to move to an entirely different environment and then utilise only the same method of filtration.

There's plenty of posts throughout the forums and on other blogs from new players stating that rookie coaches/teams only ever seem to get greenlighted by legends (from their point of view).

If you bothered to read my post I actually outlayed some of the methods of cherrypicking in B. From your posts, you appear merely to be a "go play ranked, no problems here sir" soundbox who has abandoned B himself.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-26 14:51:11
And incidentally, the "this isn't a discussion on picking". It becomes so when any "solution" to blackbox is "go play ranked", because at that point, you have created a comparison between divisions where the only (non-meta) difference is... the ability to pick your opponent.
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-26 15:07:14
"You must see if the team you are playing are actually tv-effective or merely built naturally, you must check to see if the coach's last games show a particular pattern of playing low-skill opponents etc."

No, that's cherrypicking.

And btw, you seem to not have read one of my posts. All I said was that there is a reason why B teams happen to be scheduled with "unfair" teams. As a solution i wrote "stop playing in the box", not "go play in R". Then, as an answer to "many of us don't like the Cherry picking of Ranked" (I don't like that, too, but do it myself from time to time, to be honest) i replied "go find a league that suits your playing style".

I still think that you can avoid being cherrypicked in R better than avoid being minmaxed in B. Most of the time i don't care about both situations. But how you make me a speakerbox is beyond me.

Back to topic, please ...
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-26 15:23:26
I am sorry Afro, but go play ranked isn't a solution. For me ranked is somewhere where you play when box is dead. The majority of people in [R] are pickers. I have over 1700 games in [R] and box so I know how long it can take to get games on gamefinder. Yes you can accept all challengeres and get games quicker but most of the games you get instantly offered are from high tv bashers or super pimped out elves which they know you don't have the tools to stop. People play all games from a standpoint of trying to win and how to do that best, so when you allow people to play what ever they want they will naturally be drawn to the path of least resistance i.e picking a win.
Hell I will admit i will generally avoid legend coaches in [R] but unless i put a 'joke' team on gamefinder my humans rarely get greenlighted by anything that is not a newer coach or monstrous mismatch in my opinion.

I am must irritated that people keep telling me to play with more than one team! Why should I have to chnage my behavouir(playing humans in box with usually only pomber and a dp at most so not really an overpowered roster or spamming any broken combination) because a bunch of other coaches gamed the sytem untill it was broken?

This is my single biggest pet peeve on FUMBBL someone or some group of people meta-game to its extreme and ruin the fun for us all.
Wether it people who ran 9 rookies 0 rerolls and 2 legend killers or the rinse and repat 29 games only teams to avoid the big killers, or even jsut the 10*cpomb spammer. Instead of chanign the sytem to make it impossible why not jsut kick them out instead? Cheater get banned, people who rage too much get banned. People at tournaments have rules because things are op in the game so we can jsut set that some build are unnaceptable, people will then report them then delete its simple but no the benelovent dictator wont tell people how to play but will just make them waste their time on stupid match ups.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-01-26 15:28:43
So it is cherry-picking to check, you are not in fact being picked? Of course. But in effect, a forcible application of a metagame nobody playing box wants to partake in.

I read your posts. But you're also missing a lot of extraneous complaints that have been aired by similar posters in the forums and in box games in general.

I stated you come across as a soundbox because you offer absolutely nothing positive to this conversation - "stop playing" is not a solution. It is a terminal point, and one which has almost certainly been considered in advance and disregarded by the poster. The grievances he raises have been raised many times in the forums, by many other members.

I'm posting in this conversation because to be quite frank, I see quite a lot of people jumping into it from a position of relative ignorance.
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2016-01-26 15:29:13
Min-maxers have basically been stopped (sure some still exist the 30 game reinse repeat dicks) THIS IS about the effect that having to take them into account has caused. they should of jsut been banned and people would realsie playing that lame level of cheese is unaccdeptable instead of just making them find a new level of cheese.
Yes min-max was a problem but the actual porlbem with min-max is dickhead coaches meta-gaming to the extreme, stopping min-max doesnt fix that it jsut moves the goal posts. the only way to deal with dickhead gamers is too bad them. If i was part of the problem ban me too, if its whats best for FUMBBL it should be done, we all know this is a Dictstorship so it needs to be ruled as one from time to time for its own good
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-26 16:02:04
1. I never said "go play ranked" (do I have to write it again? and again?)

2. playing a team with 9 linemen and 2 legend killer isn't against the rules in B (but it could be in L), and nobody can be banned for developing and playing such team

Your main problem was that you don't want to face teams with very high TV in B. I pointed out why it is (was?) necessary to have the rule against min-maxers (this is still a valid tactic to win matches, albeit a cheesy one).

I actually don't have a solution that go beyond "if you don't want to face teams with higher TV, search for a league (L, R, S, ...) where you can pick your opponent (or reject a matchup, if that phrase makes you feel any better)". Since it is the MAIN ATTRIBUTE in B that you can't pick your opponent, you won't find a solution in B that will make you happy. And if you change this attribute, B won't be what it was created for in the first place.
Posted by MattDakka on 2016-01-26 19:21:59
If you want to activate just one team in Box be prepared to face some TV gaps.
You have at your disposal the simple workaround of activating many teams (you could create many Human teams if you like to play this race), if you don't want to use it then you have to suck the TV mismatches up.


Posted by koadah on 2016-01-27 00:06:55
"Stop playing Box" is an excellent solution. So is "stop playing Ranked".

League FTW!!! :D
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-01-27 02:08:56
@Afro, do you take the first game offered to you in Ranked? Do you play Box? I think your arguments are only used to Troll. No offence, but we get your point. Repeating your point of view, doesn't change our opinion on it. you aren't going into anything new to discredit the argument against it. Nothing else to ad other than "Be like me, play ranked." We don't want to, thanks for your opinion, but no Thanks.

@koadah- I play Box, because its more like a League environment. You build you team to suit all opponents. I don't build the bash only teams. I build all my teams the same, in Ranked, Box, and league.
Posted by Afro on 2016-01-27 08:30:36
@Keggie
I am starting to think that playing Box kills brain cells. I never said "go play ranked". And I didn't argue, I just stated that there won't be a change to B because of said reasons, even if you and your imaginary group of fanboys want to. Please, stop talking about "we", because you are not "we" , you are "you". Pretending to speak for a group doesn't make you right.

And thank you for downgrading my opinion. Who made you king of Blood Bowl? I never said I would take the first offer, and I never said someone has to. And I played 622 matches in the box. But what do these answers have to do with the topic of this blog or with the ability to advance an opinion? So much for "trolling" ...
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-01-27 23:27:15
I thought you (OP) didn't want to play Ranked anymore because you didn't want to cherrypick? That's certainly something most of us can sympathize with. It's very easy to get into that mode. I've one it.......at some point most of us have done it.

Now you're saying it's because you feel you can't find a fair match up. There's a fair difference in reasoning there.

I'd say the few times I've tried to play Ranked in the couple of years I haven't had any problems getting a fair game, albeit not using hardcore races.

Is there a picking problem in Ranked? Indubitably, yes. Does this mean you cannot get fair games as a 'Star' with relative ease, with an ok team build during Euro hours? I'd wager it doesn't.