RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
 Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 16:54 |
 
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | I believe in win rate and performance. |
win rate doesn't mean anything if you play strict one type of format ONLY.
You can have 75% win rate but if you won most of the games against coaches who have 200 to 500 rating points less than you and/or vs teams who has 200 games less than yours at similar TV (either in Box or Gamefinder it is the same) it doesn't make a lot of statistical sense.
There are plenty of way to "gaming the system" with the only goal to "boost" the win rate.
Some “Black Box purists” think that the only win rate that matters is that earned in Box games and that those who play GameFinder (Open Play) are cherrypickers in general who have inflated win rates. And this can be very true for some coach.
But hear hear: you can safely cherrypick even in BlackBox just by having a little patience and living off the “income”
Here is the "recipe"
: it is sufficient to activate few Tiers1/2teams (one per race only)
You play the first 30 games only with the 'idea of optimizing the roster, if you have patience you cherrypick open games, if not you activate all teams in Box, you don't give a damn about the win rate at the beginning, you try to win but you think mostly about the roster optimization/efficiency: then after the 30th ( or so) when you have the stat freak you keep activating in Box and only 1 team per roster and only Tiers 1/2 team.
You count on the fact that usually majority of players (included the strongest) play Trophy (or simply do not activate when they see some that is known to use this technique) and result is that majority of Box games are played vs Rookie/Veteran/Emergingstar/Star few superstars with inefficient rosters.
If you do not have terrible snake and if you play correctly you can easily reach 70% win rate
Certainly a minimum of skill is needed .
The autopolyte must be well calibrated  and clearly a good knowledge of what are the best skill for your player is necessary so i don't say that whatever noobs can do but well... 
Even someone bad like me probably can reach 60%.
It just requires a lot of patience (because after 15 games there is box protection and you might miss several spins because most people play under 15 games. But if you have patience and stubbornness you can do it
There is nothing exceptional in this.
Is like at the beginning of the Movie "ROCKY III" where Apollo Creed told to Rocky after defeat vs "Mr T" that he maintained the World Champion title only playing easy games.
It is easy
Not all win rate are the same for me.
For me one Win Rate which really has a direct link with the coach skills and ability is - for instance- the one you are able to gain in playing BlackBox Trophy WITH ONE SQUAD of FOUR TEAMS (and not only with 1 team Tiers1) because Trophy force you to create squad with a balanced roster/tiers also playing non super efficient roster in the starting.
I will preface this by saying that I am preaching to you ( well someone called me "the inquisitor" ehehehe) knowing that I play poorly, that I have a win rate that I deserve because I play poorly and make my mistakes but at least not certain gaming the system to drug my win rate (I have done this in game finder in fact if you go to see here https://fumbbl.com/p/rankings?c=RDaneel you see that in Open Play I have a win rate of 70% which is totally false: I get this by stubborn cherrypick - then i was bored and i stopped.)
if I meet in the box someone who plays at my level I usually draw and if i met someone like Malmir i lose in general in 70% of the case.
ciao ciao furbetti del quartierino! |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 17:07 |
|
If gaming the Box is easy, do better than people you think they game the system. You can use their very same approach, rosters and races (they don't have the exclusive), that will remove the "roster freak" advantage you despise. Then it will be just your coach's performance compared to other coaches' performance.
It's better to prove things with solid facts and stats than make assumptions.
Open division for me doesn't exist, I consider it a bug of the site.
There is only the Box division and when I talk about stats and win rate, I imply that division.
About gaming the stats in the Box: I have played 2276 games in the Box and that's a big enough sample to say that I didn't play only vs noobs and gamed the system (unless we think that most of the Box coaches are noobs, but I don't think so). In theory, according to statistics and Gaussian bell, a little percentage should be made by noobs, a little percentage by very good coaches, the biggest percentage should be made by average coaches, not too bad and not too good. So, in theory, most of my Box games should have been played vs average coaches. Moreover, if you win vs noobs you gain very few CR points, if you tie or lose you lose lots of CR points.
Considering how the CR system works, in order to gain CR points you need a Gamefinder, keeping on playing noob after noob and winning the games (arranging games with a TV gap to make the win more likely, if possible). The Box scheduler makes hard to play only vs noobs every game and as TV overdog (unlike the Gamefinder for the Open division).
The thing I do in the Box, which can be considered "gaming the system", is trying to keep my teams in their sweetspot and generally at max TV 1500, if possible (some teams grow too much and I don't want to fire developed players if the roster works, although that means I can't find games with them unless somebody monoactivates a high TV team).
That said, I'm not the only one keeping their teams in their sweetspot, it's just a competitive strategy common in TV match-making environments.
You can do it or not, but you can't blame people playing in a Competitive division for using competitive rosters and strategies. It's not a training unranked division made to play tutorial games. |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 18:08 |
|
There should be a metric of how long a forum takes until MattDakka's box teams get brought up. I imagine the average is between 3 and 4 pages. |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 18:13 |
|
 |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 19:29 |
|
Wait, did you imply that any skill you wouldn't have taken is a "junk skill"?
I'm constitutionally incapable of going there with you. Every time I consider a skill roll, I look first at all the possibilities any possible roll would bring, and I consider skill packages with TV ads in mind.
Redrafting primarily players with only retail skills is as much an admission of failure as redrafting suboptimal skills, if you ask me. Can't get 20k MB on a lineman without risking that lineman, and your risk will be lessened if you can get good mileage from Grab or Break Tackle. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 19:48 |
|
Generally speaking, I consider junk skills the skills I don't keep if I get them randomly and I don't like them. They can be more or less useful/situational, but junk skills nonetheless.
No need to consider all the possibilities, after many years of BB we already know the core skills which work.
I consider the possibilities of situational skills as well and I don't take them if I don't see possible or common uses.
Yes, Grab can be useful, sometimes (I pick Grab on a Treeman for 1TTD) and Break Tackle is nice on a Bull Centaur or ST 3 Blitzer, but I want as soon as possible the skills most commonly used by that specific player.
So, if I have to skill up a Blitzer (Human, Orc, Dwarf, or a Wight, for example), I pick Guard, Mighty Blow, Tackle. I can even risk a random, sometimes. For example, one of my Dwarf Blitzers got Niggled, I randomized a ST skill and rolled Stand Firm. That is a core skill for Dwarfs so I kept him, but I could have fired him in case of bad ST rolled (because he was Niggled). That was an exception, but normally, on my Dwarfs, I just wait and get the boring-but-effective Guard, Mighty Blow, Stand Firm/Dauntless triad.
They work. I even tried the random S skill approach on Dwarfs and G on Elves, it didn't work. In my opinion it works well on cheap players you can afford to cycle easily (such as Zombies, Skeletons, Hobgoblins, Thralls etc.).
On expensive players it doesn't work for me, if not as odd gambling when I don't care about a player and I could fire him in case of bad random skill (with enough gold in the Treasury). |
Last edited by MattDakka on Nov 01, 2024; edited 1 time in total |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 20:00 |
|
Ok. But Dwarfs are only one end of the spectrum.
Like, I have found with my NCBB Nobles, I don't mind throwing out a Blitzer for a bad roll, but if I roll something situational, I can try again and see how it flies. I got Diving Catch on one, then picked Dodge second. I decided to run with it, and it helped me make something viable out of that silly Thrower, but I wouldn't have called it great. Then I randomed again, into Side Step this time, and now he has Fend (awesome when everyone else does too), and is actually a great player and a good deal at 165k. Never would have picked Diving Catch, but it's actually amazing on that player as he is now. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 20:07 |
|
But that particular player has Catch by default, so Diving Catch has a synergy with it
I don't know NCBB, but in the Box, if I played IN (I swore not to do it again in this ruleset!) I would just wait and pick Dodge, Side Step and stats on one and on the other one Dodge, Side Step, Tackle, Diving Tackle (I could even wait and pick Guard).
I want to have the good skills in every game I play. Also, if you play at high TV (if I'm not wrong, NCBB is about high TV) having a bit cheaper player with random skills won't make a huge difference. It's better to have a more expensive player with the best skills than a cheaper one with less optimal skills.
To make an example, I built one of my Amazon Blitzer:
https://fumbbl.com/p/player?player_id=16507261
with Block, Guard, Side Step, Diving Tackle, Tackle
It would be very unlikely to get Side Step, Diving Tackle and Tackle by rolling them randomly and I would have saved just 30 TV.
At the TV I play them 30 TV won't make a difference, while the hidden synergy that the skills have makes up for the normal cost I paid them.
Personally, I would have not kept an IN Blitzer with Diving Catch. I would have kept him with either random Side Step or Dodge or Diving Tackle or Sprint. Horses for courses. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Nov 01, 2024; edited 1 time in total |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 20:17 |
|
Ah, well, it's different for different rosters. ImpNobs have such terrible value problems that you simply have to find value advantage if you want to keep them running, so once you get over the money hump, you have to risk randoms on players most rosters would find too chancy.
Other end of the spectrum from Dwarfs. All lineman teams are similar here. If all you have is 50k Human Linemen, everything but Shadowing and maybe Strip Ball is welcome at 10k |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on Nov 01, 2024; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 20:19 |
|
As far as I know (I watched and played vs IN teams in the Box) they are better off as a ruthlessly minmaxed low TV team, with 2 trrs + Leader or even 1 trr + Leader, exploiting the default skill advantage they have.
They don't gain a lot by growing in TV, compared to other teams. At mid-high TV the Linemen get removed too fast due to Mighty Blow and the team tends to crumble.
Yes, roster, TV and environment contexts are important to discuss random skills.
In IN case, I would risk to randomize G skills on Linemen, if I could replace them.
I would not risk random skills on Blitzers, Bodyguards and Thrower, generally speaking (if I had gold to waste I could randomize a P or G skill on the Thrower). |
Last edited by MattDakka on Nov 13, 2024; edited 4 times in total |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 20:21 |
|
That is because they are hard to keep tight.
My point is that the fact that the old way still works has blunted our quest to develop the new way that just opened up, and this exposes us to attack from unseen quarters. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 21:42 |
|
I prefer attacking from the nickel. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2024 - 22:40 |
|
| Carthage wrote: | | I prefer attacking from the nickel. |
That's so LRB6. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Lokragen
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2024 - 09:17 |
|
a certain skill is like useless objects at home, we don't dare throw them away, in case it could be useful to us
Should we assume that some skills are too bad? And change them to enrich the game? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2024 - 11:26 |
|
Some skills are too bad, yes. We can't change them because we are not the game designers. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Open [L]eague Cup - ...
Search
