36 coaches online • Server time: 00:36
* * * Did you know? The best passer is Cherrystone Hotpack with 656 completions.
Recent Forum Topics  Star Player Pictures | NAF LIVE EVENT - 28t... | No seasons. 2016 Pro... |
2020-07-17 07:27:24
30 votes, rating 5.7
30 votes, rating 5.7
An apology
So this is a tough one to write and I'm not even sure if anybody else would care. I had a strange one and I'm going to try to make it as general as possible, posting it much later, to avoid veering into public shaming.
Oppo greeted me as if they knew me already, but we never faced each other before; strangely enough it had happened already earlier that day in another game. I was then in the middle of a meteoric rise to the status of Legend, following some upset stunty victories and a long stretch of playing 1.6-1.8mil TV necromantic, which was surprisingly successful.
Over the course of the game, the chat filled with comments about my outrageous luck, expressing disbelief at my legend badge, ascribing it all to luck, and disparaging my choice of build. I tried to defuse the situation and turn it into a joke, and I'd like to think it worked, up to a point. By the way, does anybody give any importance to the title next to their nickname?
After the game I went to check the stats, because I was curious. My POWs were below average. My skulls were above average. The reverse was true for my opponent! And the bell curve for my 2d6 was centered on 6 rather than on 7, disgusting! But I had some really great moments in that game, that was definitely true, and the dice stats couldn't have shown it.
I could have gone back and PM'd my opponent about how they let me surf players that were 2 squares from the edge with a frenzyless team, or get into full contact every turn, resulting in me doing more than twice as many blocks. But this is not about what a bloody superior tactical mind I am (I'm just some geezer that has built reflexes and habits in a pixel toy soldier game) and I reckon that kind of "advice" wouldn't have been welcome.
What I wanted to focus this on is how many times I have been that guy. I was never that focused on CR, titles, critiquing build choices, but boy do I complain about the dice sometimes. I'd like to say it's cultural, up to a point, but that must have been unbearable for most of you lot.
In this instance it didn't feel bad at all on my end, I swear it was just odd, but I can relate both to this particular opponent and conversely to anybody who's taken the same kind of babble from me. I'm sorry and I can't say sorry directly, because I have no idea who you are in particular. Anyway, I'm sorry.
At no point I ever felt the need to go back and check the stats, to see if they confirmed my irrational impression, but I bet it was almost never true. And it was rarely a learning experience.
The more I approach 1000 losses the more I appreciate the title of that playbook. Still baffled by the fact that some people give importance to CR-associated titles. I might get good at this eventually, until then I'll just have to chance it. And say sorry once in a while.
Oppo greeted me as if they knew me already, but we never faced each other before; strangely enough it had happened already earlier that day in another game. I was then in the middle of a meteoric rise to the status of Legend, following some upset stunty victories and a long stretch of playing 1.6-1.8mil TV necromantic, which was surprisingly successful.
Over the course of the game, the chat filled with comments about my outrageous luck, expressing disbelief at my legend badge, ascribing it all to luck, and disparaging my choice of build. I tried to defuse the situation and turn it into a joke, and I'd like to think it worked, up to a point. By the way, does anybody give any importance to the title next to their nickname?
After the game I went to check the stats, because I was curious. My POWs were below average. My skulls were above average. The reverse was true for my opponent! And the bell curve for my 2d6 was centered on 6 rather than on 7, disgusting! But I had some really great moments in that game, that was definitely true, and the dice stats couldn't have shown it.
I could have gone back and PM'd my opponent about how they let me surf players that were 2 squares from the edge with a frenzyless team, or get into full contact every turn, resulting in me doing more than twice as many blocks. But this is not about what a bloody superior tactical mind I am (I'm just some geezer that has built reflexes and habits in a pixel toy soldier game) and I reckon that kind of "advice" wouldn't have been welcome.
What I wanted to focus this on is how many times I have been that guy. I was never that focused on CR, titles, critiquing build choices, but boy do I complain about the dice sometimes. I'd like to say it's cultural, up to a point, but that must have been unbearable for most of you lot.
In this instance it didn't feel bad at all on my end, I swear it was just odd, but I can relate both to this particular opponent and conversely to anybody who's taken the same kind of babble from me. I'm sorry and I can't say sorry directly, because I have no idea who you are in particular. Anyway, I'm sorry.
At no point I ever felt the need to go back and check the stats, to see if they confirmed my irrational impression, but I bet it was almost never true. And it was rarely a learning experience.
The more I approach 1000 losses the more I appreciate the title of that playbook. Still baffled by the fact that some people give importance to CR-associated titles. I might get good at this eventually, until then I'll just have to chance it. And say sorry once in a while.
Comments
Posted by Bloodfeast on 2020-07-17 09:38:04
I have tried to check my dice after some matches in the past but I have stopped doing it for two reasons.
1: The stats doesnt matter!
2: I dont understand how to read them!
Take care :)
1: The stats doesnt matter!
2: I dont understand how to read them!
Take care :)
Posted by Java on 2020-07-17 10:10:25
My curse is that I do. I am a Maths teacher. That is terrible, I know.
I think I've looked at the stats a handful of times. It's generally just to scratch an itch of a doubt. Rarely mind-opening.
I think I've looked at the stats a handful of times. It's generally just to scratch an itch of a doubt. Rarely mind-opening.
Posted by awambawamb on 2020-07-17 10:15:07
I can feel you. My problem is with power players, so I took another path.
Posted by koadah on 2020-07-17 12:48:48
As more of a role-play type guy, I prefer it if people never mention "the dice" at all.
People can moan as much as they like about how terrible their team is tonight and how much Nuffle has it in for them. But personally, I don't want to hear about "the dice".
Someone going "full Jim Mora" can be quite a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie0tz7jGDI
People can moan as much as they like about how terrible their team is tonight and how much Nuffle has it in for them. But personally, I don't want to hear about "the dice".
Someone going "full Jim Mora" can be quite a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie0tz7jGDI
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-17 12:50:22
I check stats sometimes but they don't tell the whole story.
You can win a game with lower than average stats if you got lucky on the dice rolls which mattered.
It's not just how many good dice you get, it's when you get them, if during important turn/action or not.
P.S. Java clearly lucked his way to Legend! :P
You can win a game with lower than average stats if you got lucky on the dice rolls which mattered.
It's not just how many good dice you get, it's when you get them, if during important turn/action or not.
P.S. Java clearly lucked his way to Legend! :P
Posted by Java on 2020-07-17 12:56:01
I should have never got there in the first place, I blame my opponents. Luckily it's over.
Posted by Verminardo on 2020-07-17 14:20:46
When I get the first comment along those lines I usually just stop chatting exept grats, thx, gg, bye. It happens really very rarely I have to say. Personally I've played you twice and it was entirely pleasant (except for the fact that I lost). :-)
Posted by Midas_Touch on 2020-07-17 17:07:39
i have raged a bit at games complained quiet alot , but im trying my hardest to 1 not ruin the game for my opponent and 2 just enjoy it win or lose.if i start getting wound up about a bad dice streak i prefer to go silent now lol
Posted by Rbthma on 2020-07-17 17:11:27
I have a personal rule to not complain about dice in-game, except in a fluffy jokey manner if my opponent will indulge me. Constant dice whinging can lead to dice expectations and repeated over time becomes a bad habit like not doing free moves first, so best to nip it in the bud I think ^-^
Agreed that dice stats never tell the full story as well.
Agreed that dice stats never tell the full story as well.
Posted by Kondor on 2020-07-17 17:26:13
Unless it is a true skullfest, dice stats don't say much for me. We all have turns where things go well up until your blitz on the ball or the criticall dodge by your AG5 carrier. You may have passed 8 straight rolls only to have the critical one fail. Stats cannot capture that objectively.
Anyway, in chat I root for/against both teams. My last opponent dropped a T16 boot and I was legitimately unhappy that it did not work. (Outside of league play the games are based on TV so who cares about the pixels?
Anyway always cheer. It will make everyone feel better.
Anyway, in chat I root for/against both teams. My last opponent dropped a T16 boot and I was legitimately unhappy that it did not work. (Outside of league play the games are based on TV so who cares about the pixels?
Anyway always cheer. It will make everyone feel better.
Posted by Arktoris on 2020-07-17 19:17:10
Bloodbowl is 50% math and 50% psychology. Your opponent was trying to rattle you so you make mistakes.
that is all.
that is all.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2020-07-17 20:12:08
Cover chat with help-> chat commands pop-up.
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-17 20:46:14
"Real life emergency, brb" <chat covered> time out, game cancelled.
gg!
:P
gg!
:P
Posted by PaddyMick on 2020-07-17 22:01:24
@Arktoris
I wish I could engage I proper trash talk but would never feel comfortable doing so unless I knew my oppo well. However, next time we play, I won't hold back ;0
@Java
Sounds like getting a taste of your own medicine made you a better coach to play against. Well done for admitting it.
@Everyone
Thinking about moaning about your luck in a game of chance? As Erik Seidel said about poker bad beat stories: you're just dumping your trash on somebody else's lawn
I wish I could engage I proper trash talk but would never feel comfortable doing so unless I knew my oppo well. However, next time we play, I won't hold back ;0
@Java
Sounds like getting a taste of your own medicine made you a better coach to play against. Well done for admitting it.
@Everyone
Thinking about moaning about your luck in a game of chance? As Erik Seidel said about poker bad beat stories: you're just dumping your trash on somebody else's lawn
Posted by stej on 2020-07-17 23:05:00
Higher skill means dice rolls seem better as you have managed the risk better
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-17 23:15:08
BB is not just a game of chance, it has two important aspects: tactical (on pitch) and strategical (roster management, skill picks, etc.).
Poker has no tactical aspect. Strategic and psychological maybe, but not tactical.
Poker has no tactical aspect. Strategic and psychological maybe, but not tactical.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2020-07-18 01:20:30
I disagree Matt. I don't see how BB decisions on a turn by turn basis differ from Poker decisions on a hand by hand, or even street by street basis. Unless we just disagree on the definition of the word Tactics, in which case semantics meh. Plus as Arktoris has pointed out, BB is also psychological.
BB has complete information (except cards) and fluff, which Poker doesn't, is the real difference. Actually no, the real difference is BB is always played for fun.
BB has complete information (except cards) and fluff, which Poker doesn't, is the real difference. Actually no, the real difference is BB is always played for fun.
Posted by koadah on 2020-07-18 05:08:11
If BB was always played for "fun" we wouldn't have blogs like this one. ;)
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-18 12:56:44
In Poker you don't move your cards on a pitch.
That's what I mean with tactics: deployment and movement on a board, with the consequent interactions amongst the players and their skills.
This is something that Poker lacks and therefore the comparison between Poker and Blood Bowl as two games of chance is partially correct.
Good positioning in BB can give an advantage which is not based on chance.
Sure, BB has a strong chance aspect, nobody denies it, but positioning is not entirely based on chance and can heavily affect a match.
That's what I mean with tactics: deployment and movement on a board, with the consequent interactions amongst the players and their skills.
This is something that Poker lacks and therefore the comparison between Poker and Blood Bowl as two games of chance is partially correct.
Good positioning in BB can give an advantage which is not based on chance.
Sure, BB has a strong chance aspect, nobody denies it, but positioning is not entirely based on chance and can heavily affect a match.
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-18 13:05:06
And about BB having complete information: not totally accurate, most actions are dice-based, so you can't know the outcome before you roll the dice.
You can know the most likely outcome or calculate the odds of a sequence but you can't predict the outcome until you roll the dice.
Chess is a game of complete information, not BB.
You can know the most likely outcome or calculate the odds of a sequence but you can't predict the outcome until you roll the dice.
Chess is a game of complete information, not BB.
Posted by Java on 2020-07-18 15:10:45
@koadah I'm sure one could argue that "fun" is difficult to define and therefore people's motivations could just fit their definition of fun at any point
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-18 15:39:15
Game should be played for winning, at least in competitive division.
Winning, unlike fun, is measurable and objective.
If game is not played with the goal of winning, the matches generally are less interesting.
Playing bad is easy, what's hard is playing well, therefore that should be a coach's goal.
Matches between Legend coaches are generally watched by many spectators because the game is played at its finest.
Watching 2 rookie coaches playing is not interesting, if not for watching poor decisions paying off from time to time.
Winning, unlike fun, is measurable and objective.
If game is not played with the goal of winning, the matches generally are less interesting.
Playing bad is easy, what's hard is playing well, therefore that should be a coach's goal.
Matches between Legend coaches are generally watched by many spectators because the game is played at its finest.
Watching 2 rookie coaches playing is not interesting, if not for watching poor decisions paying off from time to time.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2020-07-19 09:33:03
I think we are on the same page Matt, it's just semantics mate. You are right of course about playing to win being more fun. The trick is to make sure your opponent has fun while you are beating them, so they play you again ;)
Posted by neubau on 2020-07-19 11:50:19
"Game should be played for winning, at least in competitive division.
Winning, unlike fun, is measurable and objective."
no.
then nobody should ever play stunty. nobody would ever build whacky teams. your definition of how the game should be played excludes a lot of reasons why people like blood bowl.
Winning, unlike fun, is measurable and objective."
no.
then nobody should ever play stunty. nobody would ever build whacky teams. your definition of how the game should be played excludes a lot of reasons why people like blood bowl.
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-19 12:53:38
To play Stunty, there is Stunty Leeg or League division.
I did it (then stopped due to people avoiding/picking/farming there), I'm able to play with whacky teams and have demential fun with them, just I find it illogical to do it in a competitive division, where the CR gain is not proportional to the difficulty of winning with a Stunty team.
Tier 3 should not exist, the game should have only balanced teams (and if you really wanted to play with a weak team, you could just make a roster with 0 rrs and no positionals, no need to have a stupid tier 3 roster badly designed by GW), losing a game because you play a super weak team is not fun, unless you like to lose or you don't care about winning, but if you don't care about winning, why are you playing? You can just play vs yourself making random moves, if you like to see whacky actions like throwing team mate etc.
Weak teams are not going to be played as often as tier 1 teams. It would be way better to add only playable teams, that way the racial variety would be increased.
I did it (then stopped due to people avoiding/picking/farming there), I'm able to play with whacky teams and have demential fun with them, just I find it illogical to do it in a competitive division, where the CR gain is not proportional to the difficulty of winning with a Stunty team.
Tier 3 should not exist, the game should have only balanced teams (and if you really wanted to play with a weak team, you could just make a roster with 0 rrs and no positionals, no need to have a stupid tier 3 roster badly designed by GW), losing a game because you play a super weak team is not fun, unless you like to lose or you don't care about winning, but if you don't care about winning, why are you playing? You can just play vs yourself making random moves, if you like to see whacky actions like throwing team mate etc.
Weak teams are not going to be played as often as tier 1 teams. It would be way better to add only playable teams, that way the racial variety would be increased.
Posted by garyt1 on 2020-07-19 17:06:40
Remember that the game is not designed with the aim of a balanced overall cr chance for each team. CR is site specific. Tier 3 teams may not work well with overall cr, but they are a challenge to win with. All the more satisfying when you do.
Posted by Java on 2020-07-19 19:29:05
CR works perfectly with stunty teams. You lose, you probably give up a pittance. You win, you get a truckload of points.
Unless you're a stunty god and are already a 180 with flings.
Unless you're a stunty god and are already a 180 with flings.
Posted by neubau on 2020-07-19 19:50:36
dakka! there are people, and that might be very confusing to you, who do not care about the number next to their name. there are also people, who don't see box or ranked as a competitive division and just play, and this again might be a shock for you so sit down, to have fun for an hour and a half.
these people, i really hope you are seated by now, just like blood bowl. incredible, i know. i don't think you actually do.
these people, i really hope you are seated by now, just like blood bowl. incredible, i know. i don't think you actually do.
Posted by koadah on 2020-07-19 21:14:17
Ranked and Box are "competitive divisions" because that is where the official tournaments take place. You are not allowed to cheat to allow your friends to build super teams to compete in the Majors. Or, I suppose, to artificially boost their CR.
As far as I can tell from the rules, that is all that "competitive" means. You must not play to lose. But, you don't have to play to win.
Some of the worst games can be just before a Major. Some coaches will just want to get their MNG players back. They may not be playing for wins or for fun. They may not really want to play at all. It might just be their only way to get their best player back for the tournament kick-off.
Matt "wants it to be one way, but it's the other way" ;)
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-On7nBOB0TEg/Wc1W2Z_nlBI/AAAAAAAAEm0/5ncjPDpYynEgwkQVRXd9hUtjjZlqUsQ6ACLcBGAs/s320/Marlo.jpg
As far as I can tell from the rules, that is all that "competitive" means. You must not play to lose. But, you don't have to play to win.
Some of the worst games can be just before a Major. Some coaches will just want to get their MNG players back. They may not be playing for wins or for fun. They may not really want to play at all. It might just be their only way to get their best player back for the tournament kick-off.
Matt "wants it to be one way, but it's the other way" ;)
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-On7nBOB0TEg/Wc1W2Z_nlBI/AAAAAAAAEm0/5ncjPDpYynEgwkQVRXd9hUtjjZlqUsQ6ACLcBGAs/s320/Marlo.jpg
Posted by MattDakka on 2020-07-19 22:57:52
My games played: 4690 (and this doesn't include the Cyanide and the tabletop games I played);
neubau's games played: 528
My games played are 8.88 the number of games played by you.
So, I think I like Blood Bowl more than you, neubau, at least judging by the number of games played by you and me and I love balance in games (unlike you, apparently).
But maybe you like more to talk about BB than actually playing it. :D
I like both and since this game is full of flaws and poorly designed, I have many things to talk about.
That said, I'm not against Halflings, Goblins, Ogres, Old World Alliance and Snotlings, but I hate that these teams are unplayable in a competitive division if you aim to win.
These races could be improved and made playable with some tweaks.
There is a big difference in playing a hard game and playing an almost impossible to win game. Tier 3 teams belong to the latter.
Java: CR doesn't work well with tier 3, look this, for example:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3987435
I lost 1.31 CR just because I played Goblins vs Norse. It's a lot of CR considering that Norse are top tier 1 at that TV and Goblins are tier 3.
neubau's games played: 528
My games played are 8.88 the number of games played by you.
So, I think I like Blood Bowl more than you, neubau, at least judging by the number of games played by you and me and I love balance in games (unlike you, apparently).
But maybe you like more to talk about BB than actually playing it. :D
I like both and since this game is full of flaws and poorly designed, I have many things to talk about.
That said, I'm not against Halflings, Goblins, Ogres, Old World Alliance and Snotlings, but I hate that these teams are unplayable in a competitive division if you aim to win.
These races could be improved and made playable with some tweaks.
There is a big difference in playing a hard game and playing an almost impossible to win game. Tier 3 teams belong to the latter.
Java: CR doesn't work well with tier 3, look this, for example:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3987435
I lost 1.31 CR just because I played Goblins vs Norse. It's a lot of CR considering that Norse are top tier 1 at that TV and Goblins are tier 3.
Posted by neubau on 2020-07-19 23:36:26
full of flaws and poorly designed. i love this game. - dakka
Posted by Rbthma on 2020-07-19 23:51:17
MattDakka: " ...I have many things to talk about..."
Really? I never noticed you constantly shifting forum posts + blogs to *your* topic of choice with an endless barrage of responses instead of addressing the OP's topic or question XD
Really? I never noticed you constantly shifting forum posts + blogs to *your* topic of choice with an endless barrage of responses instead of addressing the OP's topic or question XD
Posted by Java on 2020-07-20 00:25:34
Matt, you probably had higher CR than your opponent at the time, so CR worked as expected. Anyway, we definitely were not talking about stunties, or tiers, or CR.
Posted by stowelly on 2020-07-20 09:04:22
I found some rare footage of Dakka talking about bloodbowl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOlbOZ9w84I