51 coaches online • Server time: 23:35
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  How to run the FUMBB... | Super League - Bigge... | Replays - Steel Gaun... |
2019-12-08 01:29:16
14 votes, rating 5.9
14 votes, rating 5.9
The subjective truth of pixelhugging
This post is not targeted at any specific coach or coaches. If you take it personally, tell your therapist. Also, it's just an opinion.
What's my beef?
Having recently witnessed a discussion where pixelhugging was mentioned and used as a pejorative term. I wanted to add my two cents on this topic. My claim: Even though excessive pixelhugging will hamper your winning chance, the community needs you. That is not to say that competitiveness is bad, but that's comparably minor part of the whole.
What do I mean?
Let me start by clarifying how I define pixelhugging. (feel free to disagree)
Pixelhugging is when you prioritize protecting one or more players to the detriment of your winning chances.
Why would I want this?
The act itself, isn't what I'm interested in. However, in my experience, pixelhugging coaches are often the ones who invest a lot of time into making a backstory for their team. Writing pages of player- and team-bios. Designing team logos and player portraits. If I spent an hour on each player, I wouldn't want to lose them either. If you didn't care about the team, you might as well give it generic names like: "My Orc team 6", "Some lineman 4" etc...
I also believe that you can be both pixelhugging and competitive, but that's a story for another time.
Fake news?
I'm generalizing a bit, since I have only anecdotal evidence. Maybe pixelhuggers only fancy the pixels, and never add flavor to teams or players. I highly doubt it.
Where am I going with this?
Too many look down at what they perceive as inferior coaches. If only competitive coaches played FUMBBL, there would be a lot fewer coaches and a lot less diversity. Nobody should be ashamed of playing the game how they want. Coaches should refrain from unduly criticism of others for enjoying the game in different ways. Nuffle knows there are plenty of other behavior to criticize.
Mea culpa?
Full disclosure. I have criticised other coaches for taking too long, and for conceding games after a few bad turns. Mostly because it took away from my enjoyment of the game. But if you enjoy spending 2+ hours per match or conceding within a few turns... Then you should keep on doing that, and ignore my complaints.
How do I enjoy playing?
It's been years since I played anything competitively. I play subpar, and I'm aware of it. It's not that I don't like to win. I just want to make every game memorable. If that means choosing improbable actions, eating a goblin too many, and failing to spot something obvious, then so be it. If both coaches had fun, I haven't wasted my time.
How should you enjoy the game?
Your own way.
All whine, no cheese?
If the narrator in your head read this blog in a whiny voice, then you missed the point and wasted your time. It's just a game, let others enjoy it.
If you have read so far, let me give you a final departing truth. Stunty teams are not "silly teams" or "not competitive", they are hardmode. If you can't win tournaments with them, then you haven't tried hard enough.
What's my beef?
Having recently witnessed a discussion where pixelhugging was mentioned and used as a pejorative term. I wanted to add my two cents on this topic. My claim: Even though excessive pixelhugging will hamper your winning chance, the community needs you. That is not to say that competitiveness is bad, but that's comparably minor part of the whole.
What do I mean?
Let me start by clarifying how I define pixelhugging. (feel free to disagree)
Pixelhugging is when you prioritize protecting one or more players to the detriment of your winning chances.
Why would I want this?
The act itself, isn't what I'm interested in. However, in my experience, pixelhugging coaches are often the ones who invest a lot of time into making a backstory for their team. Writing pages of player- and team-bios. Designing team logos and player portraits. If I spent an hour on each player, I wouldn't want to lose them either. If you didn't care about the team, you might as well give it generic names like: "My Orc team 6", "Some lineman 4" etc...
I also believe that you can be both pixelhugging and competitive, but that's a story for another time.
Fake news?
I'm generalizing a bit, since I have only anecdotal evidence. Maybe pixelhuggers only fancy the pixels, and never add flavor to teams or players. I highly doubt it.
Where am I going with this?
Too many look down at what they perceive as inferior coaches. If only competitive coaches played FUMBBL, there would be a lot fewer coaches and a lot less diversity. Nobody should be ashamed of playing the game how they want. Coaches should refrain from unduly criticism of others for enjoying the game in different ways. Nuffle knows there are plenty of other behavior to criticize.
Mea culpa?
Full disclosure. I have criticised other coaches for taking too long, and for conceding games after a few bad turns. Mostly because it took away from my enjoyment of the game. But if you enjoy spending 2+ hours per match or conceding within a few turns... Then you should keep on doing that, and ignore my complaints.
How do I enjoy playing?
It's been years since I played anything competitively. I play subpar, and I'm aware of it. It's not that I don't like to win. I just want to make every game memorable. If that means choosing improbable actions, eating a goblin too many, and failing to spot something obvious, then so be it. If both coaches had fun, I haven't wasted my time.
How should you enjoy the game?
Your own way.
All whine, no cheese?
If the narrator in your head read this blog in a whiny voice, then you missed the point and wasted your time. It's just a game, let others enjoy it.
If you have read so far, let me give you a final departing truth. Stunty teams are not "silly teams" or "not competitive", they are hardmode. If you can't win tournaments with them, then you haven't tried hard enough.
Comments
Posted by Joe1982 on 2019-12-08 01:56:56
Yes well said. So much resentment sometimes. If someone play's within the rules, then I really believe you need to shrug it off. When obvious problems with the rules emerge, them things get changed to reduce the problem and/or others take on board the exposed issue and exploit it themselves. But that is beside the point. Noone had a right to moan because you take 4 mins for a turn, try to protect your players rather than win, or anything else. Read the f*****g rules. Don't like them, don't play.
Posted by smallman on 2019-12-08 02:17:11
Good points. I personally consider pixel hugging to be just crying when your players get permanent injuries.
Posted by Lorebass on 2019-12-08 04:26:02
Haha, awesome. One point though for anyone who doesn't already know this or hasn't been gifted by one of my patented "Properly Named" players...
Don't use repeating end caps for players. eg: lino 1,2,3,4 goes against our naming rules. On top of that, hug your pixels however you please.
Don't use repeating end caps for players. eg: lino 1,2,3,4 goes against our naming rules. On top of that, hug your pixels however you please.
Posted by koadah on 2019-12-08 11:26:05
Some people see this only see this as just a strategy game. To others, it has a role-playing element. To those, the players are players. Not just 'pieces', 'pixels' or whatever.
So yeah, building a big or famous team is part of the game. As is building a famous, hopefully, great, maybe legendary players.
Some other people only see league and tournament games as "competitive". So, non tournament Rabked/Box games may just be "friendly"/builder games. Who wants a top player to die in a meaningless "friendly"?
So yeah, building a big or famous team is part of the game. As is building a famous, hopefully, great, maybe legendary players.
Some other people only see league and tournament games as "competitive". So, non tournament Rabked/Box games may just be "friendly"/builder games. Who wants a top player to die in a meaningless "friendly"?
Posted by harvestmouse on 2019-12-08 20:51:04
Not wishing to 'seem like' I'm picking on Joe1982 however..........I'm going to pick on Joe1982! Nothing personal (and I wish you the very best of Christmases) however I take issue with a lot of what you wrote.
"If someone play's within the rules, then I really believe you need to shrug it off."
The problem for me here is how people view the game on FUMBBL. This is not a commercial game; it's a hobby. All the content here and the site has been created by hobbyists for hobbyists. This isn't a commercial product where at times developers get what they deserve (if they neglect their paying punters). The people who have created everything here, have done it for you from the goodness of their heart. For me, this is reason enough to view things differently.
"When obvious problems with the rules emerge, them things get changed to reduce the problem"
My second point regarding this matter is that FUMBBL has no control of the core rules. Yes, FUMBBL has a fair amount of control over 'discipline' under site rules. However If an aspect of the core rules is being abused here; there's very little the site can do. So abusing the core rules is abusing the site.
"or others take on board the exposed issue and exploit it themselves."
See my first point for my view on that. Also when this is done, the game is no longer being played how it was intended. It also tends to limit the game to a few playable options and you lose a lot of the intended diversity.
"Noone had a right to moan because you take 4 mins for a turn, try to protect your players rather than win, or anything else. Read the f*****g rules."
Actually maybe you should read the rules. I do agree with you (partly on this). However the 'site' rules aren't that you have 4 minutes per turn to do how you wish. You have as much time as you need 'up to 4 minutes'. For example if you are just about done after a minute. You are not allowed to stretch the turn out to the full 4 minutes. However if actually do require the full 4 minutes (or more if your opponent doesn't time you out) then that's how much time you are allowed.
"Don't like them, don't play."
This I agree with!
(Now queue Koadah and 'Commissioner's word is law')
"If someone play's within the rules, then I really believe you need to shrug it off."
The problem for me here is how people view the game on FUMBBL. This is not a commercial game; it's a hobby. All the content here and the site has been created by hobbyists for hobbyists. This isn't a commercial product where at times developers get what they deserve (if they neglect their paying punters). The people who have created everything here, have done it for you from the goodness of their heart. For me, this is reason enough to view things differently.
"When obvious problems with the rules emerge, them things get changed to reduce the problem"
My second point regarding this matter is that FUMBBL has no control of the core rules. Yes, FUMBBL has a fair amount of control over 'discipline' under site rules. However If an aspect of the core rules is being abused here; there's very little the site can do. So abusing the core rules is abusing the site.
"or others take on board the exposed issue and exploit it themselves."
See my first point for my view on that. Also when this is done, the game is no longer being played how it was intended. It also tends to limit the game to a few playable options and you lose a lot of the intended diversity.
"Noone had a right to moan because you take 4 mins for a turn, try to protect your players rather than win, or anything else. Read the f*****g rules."
Actually maybe you should read the rules. I do agree with you (partly on this). However the 'site' rules aren't that you have 4 minutes per turn to do how you wish. You have as much time as you need 'up to 4 minutes'. For example if you are just about done after a minute. You are not allowed to stretch the turn out to the full 4 minutes. However if actually do require the full 4 minutes (or more if your opponent doesn't time you out) then that's how much time you are allowed.
"Don't like them, don't play."
This I agree with!
(Now queue Koadah and 'Commissioner's word is law')
Posted by koadah on 2019-12-09 14:53:00
If you post the same old stuff, you'll get the same old responses. ;)
The big divisions are big because, well... they get more coaches. The more people you have, the more different opinions, attitudes, approaches you are going get.
If you want to play Box, you have to compromise on the kind of opponent that you are prepared to play against.
If you want to play Ranked, the pickier you are about the experience that you want, the longer you are going to have to wait.
You could create a league and advertise it a certain way. That may give you the perfect experience. But you may only get one or two games a week. If you just roll up at a random time on a random day, what are the chances that one of your like-minded buddies will be around and ready to play?
The more relaxed you are against the kind of opponent you want, the quicker and easier it will be to get a game.
Quantity vs quality.
"Hobby" vs "commercial" is not relevant. It is a game. There will always be people "who take it more seriously and some who take it less.
"FUMBBL has no control of the core rules!" Christer has full control of the rules that are used in the main divisions. He is not under contract to GW. He can and does pick the rules that he thinks are best for the site.
The big divisions are big because, well... they get more coaches. The more people you have, the more different opinions, attitudes, approaches you are going get.
If you want to play Box, you have to compromise on the kind of opponent that you are prepared to play against.
If you want to play Ranked, the pickier you are about the experience that you want, the longer you are going to have to wait.
You could create a league and advertise it a certain way. That may give you the perfect experience. But you may only get one or two games a week. If you just roll up at a random time on a random day, what are the chances that one of your like-minded buddies will be around and ready to play?
The more relaxed you are against the kind of opponent you want, the quicker and easier it will be to get a game.
Quantity vs quality.
"Hobby" vs "commercial" is not relevant. It is a game. There will always be people "who take it more seriously and some who take it less.
"FUMBBL has no control of the core rules!" Christer has full control of the rules that are used in the main divisions. He is not under contract to GW. He can and does pick the rules that he thinks are best for the site.
Posted by fidius on 2019-12-09 22:53:05
You must admit it is an interesting feature of our game that a very large percentage of players (probably way over 50%, here in Western Canada it's more like 80%) are in it for the roleplaying, and are therefore playing most games sub-optimally. Which means the "competitive" players are typically not getting a consistent competitive experience except at the highest levels of tournament / playoffs. Which means what the competitive players *say* they want and what they *really* want are at odds. After all, does it make sense to endure 10 matches in order to get 2 or 3 true tete-a-tetes? In my experience what competitive players *really* want is to win. And Blood Bowl lends itself to that type of player because there is a never-ending supply of roleplayers to play against.
The game was designed with roleplaying foremost in mind, clearly. That it's also an incredible competitive challenge (under certain circumstances) is really no more than a happy coincidence.
The game was designed with roleplaying foremost in mind, clearly. That it's also an incredible competitive challenge (under certain circumstances) is really no more than a happy coincidence.
Posted by Throweck on 2019-12-10 18:56:11
@koadah
'If you want to play Box, you have to compromise on the kind of opponent that you are prepared to play against.'
I think that's quite a harsh and untrue statement for the current state of the Box. I know you have beef with Box, but that's a sweeping statement for a lot of new Box coaches.
'If you want to play Box, you have to compromise on the kind of opponent that you are prepared to play against.'
I think that's quite a harsh and untrue statement for the current state of the Box. I know you have beef with Box, but that's a sweeping statement for a lot of new Box coaches.
Posted by koadah on 2019-12-11 13:23:22
@Throweck: No. I don't have a beef with the Box. I ran HLP, ARR & Box Sprints for years. I had a beef with CRP CPOMB in the box, which is no more. I don't play Box because I don't have time. Though I'm not that keen on playing vs lizardmen either.
The statement is not "harsh" at all. But it is true. You have no choice who you play unless you disconnect before the game starts.
There has only been one coach that I would never play against and that coach did not play Box.
I am not complaining about how people play in the Box. But, if like me, you might only get one game a week, you want it to be a good one. In the Box you cannot rely on that. If you play 5, 10+ games, the odd bad one is less of a big deal.
The statement is not "harsh" at all. But it is true. You have no choice who you play unless you disconnect before the game starts.
There has only been one coach that I would never play against and that coach did not play Box.
I am not complaining about how people play in the Box. But, if like me, you might only get one game a week, you want it to be a good one. In the Box you cannot rely on that. If you play 5, 10+ games, the odd bad one is less of a big deal.
Posted by Throweck on 2019-12-11 13:37:52
@koadah that context helps. Thanks
I think I took umbridge with ‘kind of opponent’ as you implying coaches who play box are a certain kind. That is what I was saying is harsh and untrue
I think I took umbridge with ‘kind of opponent’ as you implying coaches who play box are a certain kind. That is what I was saying is harsh and untrue