FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:06

bghandras wrote:

@Harvestmouse: It is clear that you have hatred towards me, so there is no point arguing with you. I just state in the forum how to consume your rants about me.

I don't hate you. I think you're a nice guy. The fact you never get enraged about my or others comments is another positive factor. I don't hate you. I do think you are taking advantage of the playing pool however, and the community should step up and let you know that isn't acceptable.

bghandras wrote:

- Ranked argument, as i play very little ranked. I would probably consider dropping that argument just for the sake that next time you mention it will be even more hilarious.

I said ranked/open league. If you check your ranked/open league games. How many are against coaches that are above 'star' status? If so, how many of those do not favour your team? I'd wager less than 3%.

bghandras wrote:

- Pro elves, this is even better comment. Pro elves are clearly "overpowered", as their ARR status shows. Good stuff. Keep it coming! With this comment you only prove your bitterness.

I never mentioned pro elves. MattyD did.

bghandras wrote:

I suggest your next post analysis that "proves" my blackbox pro elf team (https://fumbbl.com/p/team?op=view&showmatches=1&team_id=810199) picked their matchups, the rookie opponents, and so on.

Again, I never said anything about your pro elf team. That was Matt's comment. My 'analysis' is on when you are in your 'sweetspot'. Outside of their, sure you lose. Once you're in it. The win rate is (for me) unacceptable. Particularly in a division where you cannot turn down games.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:09

Matthueycamo wrote:

Trying to end min/max is really looking for the Holy Grail. Regardless of whether it's a problem or not it's just how people are when they get competitive.

Well definitely no. If you eradicated TV, then min/max is no more. However if you did that, you'd have other problems.

The holy grail is find the balance. I don't play box, looking at it......I'd rather quit than play box. My opinion is that it needs a better balance AND the format of not choosing your match ups is the right way to go.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:12

harvestmouse wrote:

koadah wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

A sporting example: Cycling: Do not attack while going through a tunnel, it's dangerous. Result: One guy did this, and never won a race again. Social rule that works. This isn't communism.

This is the kind of logic a lot people simply will not understand.

If it is dangerous to attack in a tunnel why wouldn't you pass a rule saying "no attacking in a tunnel"? Seriously.

Ok. Why is there a social rule? Because it's dangerous, due to being dark. Why isn't there an actual rule? Because sometimes tunnels are well lit or are open on one side, giving enough light.

How do you discern which are dangerous and which are not? By experience/common sense. Therefore if you have experience, you do not piss in the pond. You teach the young ones not to piss in the pond.

The same commonsense rules apply to bloodbowl.

So, you are always going to have situations where some people think it is enough light and some don't.

Blood bowl has a lot more grey I think.

You don't have to go the whole hog. You could keep it simple Twisted Evil

_________________

Open [L]eague Tournaments - NOW recruiting!! Old/New style skill progression! - Secret League - All Stars!

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:12

harvestmouse wrote:

Not quite sure of the relevance. That's a law. If an elderly person by the side of the road is waiting to cross the road and you are the only traffic preventing them from doing so, what do you do? It's an example of morals, not common law. If you are the person preventing them from crossing, do you allow them or not?

My point was that: when something it's deemed wrong the society makes laws to enforce the right behaviour.
If I'm in a hurry and there is no pedestrian crossing/traffic light (and therefore I'm not infringing the law) then I dont allow people/vehicle to cross the road ( Very Happy

although I don't ram them), if I have time and I'm in a good mood then allow them.
When there is a pedestrian crossing/traffic light I stop and let the people pass.
This is why laws exist: to draw a clear line between right and wrong for the society/community you live in.

harvestmouse wrote:

That's very vague and actually kind of the point. I'm blaming BGhandras for taking advantage of any situation he can find to win.

If you have to cut something do you sharpen a knife?
He just sharpens his knife by keeping a lean roster.

harvestmouse wrote:

He seems desperate to win, no matter the cost. Using TV to his advantage is one main factor. However he is extremely good at logical advantages.

Some people try to win by using any legal mean and managing to the max their roster, other people don't care so much and play with a different attitude.
We can have our ethical preferences on the matter, but at the end of the day if something is obnoxious for a community then a clear rule should be made to forbid it, we can't rely on our own personal ethical preferences and expect that they will be adopted by the entire community.

Last edited by MattDakka on Sep 07, 2016; edited 1 time in total

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:14

harvestmouse wrote:

Matthueycamo wrote:

Trying to end min/max is really looking for the Holy Grail. Regardless of whether it's a problem or not it's just how people are when they get competitive.

Well definitely no. If you eradicated TV, then min/max is no more. However if you did that, you'd have other problems.

The holy grail is find the balance. I don't play box, looking at it......I'd rather quit than play box. My opinion is that it needs a better balance AND the format of not choosing your match ups is the right way to go.

Would you be more apt to play Box if there was enforced diversity organized along the categorical groups I outlined?

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:16

You referred to 97% win rate, and it is only that team, so i assumed you speak about that team.

Back to topic: I think that taking advantage of tactical opportunities is the point of this (or any other strategic) game. Lying or committing a crime is not a tactical decision. So lets dismiss ethical examples. Team management and player moves are the point of emphasis.

_________________

Rbthma

Joined: Jan 14, 2009

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:19

licker wrote:

MattDakka wrote:

Rbthma wrote:

Couldn't these coaches presumably find 3 races that have enough cpomb on them though - Chaos, Nurgle, Pact. This might find slightly better individual matchups, but is it changing the culture?

At least building clawpombers would take more time, because the games played are split into 3 teams instead of just 1 monoactivated team.

The initial proposal was to split the races into 3 segments and require one team from each segment to be activated.

Nominally it was Mutations/Elfs/Everything else.

Though where teams like Skaven or Underworld would fall would have to be open to discussion.

Alternatively you just limit it to one Mutation team per activation and don't put any restrictions on the rest.

Since, yeah? Right? This is still about high TV cpomb right???

1 mutation team per activation would be the only one I might support. Forcing coaches to play races they don't like isn't good. I've tried playing bash a few times and I get bored with it, so I wouldn't like to be forced to play cpomb.

As far as cpomb, I think you're right. All TV/min-max/Rainbow max threads seem to mention it eventually. Whoops, forbidden talk... sorry

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:22

bghandras wrote:

Back to topic: I think that taking advantage of tactical opportunities is the point of this (or any other strategic) game.

Technically roster management is a strategic factor.
Moving and positioning players is a tactical factor.
I'm nitpicking, I know. Razz

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:23

koadah wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

koadah wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

A sporting example: Cycling: Do not attack while going through a tunnel, it's dangerous. Result: One guy did this, and never won a race again. Social rule that works. This isn't communism.

This is the kind of logic a lot people simply will not understand.

If it is dangerous to attack in a tunnel why wouldn't you pass a rule saying "no attacking in a tunnel"? Seriously.

Ok. Why is there a social rule? Because it's dangerous, due to being dark. Why isn't there an actual rule? Because sometimes tunnels are well lit or are open on one side, giving enough light.

How do you discern which are dangerous and which are not? By experience/common sense. Therefore if you have experience, you do not piss in the pond. You teach the young ones not to piss in the pond.

The same commonsense rules apply to bloodbowl.

So, you are always going to have situations where some people think it is enough light and some don't.

No. You have some areas that are acceptable and some that are not. There maybe grey, but then senior members of the community with experience decide that, not use their experience to take advantage of it.

It's quite clear. The idea is to play fair. With TV/Box. That simply isn't the case.

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:23

You are right. It is nitpicking. Razz

My main point is that lying or committing a crime is not involved in any STRATEGIC or TACTICAL factors when i speak about bbowl. Smile

_________________

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:25

mrt1212 wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

Matthueycamo wrote:

Trying to end min/max is really looking for the Holy Grail. Regardless of whether it's a problem or not it's just how people are when they get competitive.

Well definitely no. If you eradicated TV, then min/max is no more. However if you did that, you'd have other problems.

The holy grail is find the balance. I don't play box, looking at it......I'd rather quit than play box. My opinion is that it needs a better balance AND the format of not choosing your match ups is the right way to go.

Would you be more apt to play Box if there was enforced diversity organized along the categorical groups I outlined?

I know we don't get on very well............but if everybody in box played as you did..........I'd think it would be the best environment ever.

So in short, yes.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:32

bghandras wrote:

You are right. It is nitpicking. Razz

My main point is that lying or committing a crime is not involved in any STRATEGIC or TACTICAL factors when i speak about bbowl. Smile

But that's taking advantage of written rules, rather being guided by morale rules. It doesn't make you a better person.

There are millions of examples where legally I could do something that morally I shouldn't.

Ask yourself should you take advantage of that?

Ask yourself, what happens to the environment if you do take advantage of being legally ok, but morally taking the piss?

The environment degrades. Which you do to a certain degree. Albeit, you are extremely gratuitous and educational to your opponents. However there again.......you are teaching how to evade social law.

Social law for me is key to our well being, no matter what environment.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:37

bghandras wrote:

You referred to 97% win rate, and it is only that team, so i assumed you speak about that team.

In any way short or form you don't think 97% is ridiculous? Do you not think that you have shaped the game that the chances of you losing are minimal?

Is that ok? Seriously, that you've loaded the game that you have a 97% chance of winning.....is that ok? I would feel absolutely humiliated if I played BB as the creators envisioned to come across you in box and stand practically no chance of winning.

My number was worked out on a results page of yours a few months back, when you had your teams in their TV range. Actually the 30 game ratios, you won every game in box that was in the range, and only drew games getting them to the TV you floated them at.

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:40

You say it is morally bad. But as i said there is no LYING or committing a CRIME involved. So it is not even inmorale by society. It is only inmorale in your mind.

You implying i am against social law is flawed.

_________________

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Sep 07, 2016 - 20:48

mrt1212 wrote:

Would you be more apt to play Box if there was enforced diversity organized along the categorical groups I outlined?

No. Less likely.

But y'all know what I want. Wink

harvestmouse wrote:

It's quite clear. The idea is to play fair. With TV/Box. That simply isn't the case.

The game isn't fair. One turners aren't fair. If someone gets one you still expect them to use it.

If it was that big a deal there would be a rule against it.

_________________

Open [L]eague Tournaments - NOW recruiting!! Old/New style skill progression! - Secret League - All Stars!