11 coaches online • Server time: 08:26
* * * Did you know? The most casualties in a single match is 21.
Recent Forum Topics  Inscription JBL Sais... | Public Service Annou... | Replays |
2009-04-30 20:38:52
27 votes, rating 2.7
27 votes, rating 2.7
The difference in playing to win and playing not to lose
Generally I don't have that much time for games here on fumbbl so I stick to leagues (or more specifically the swedish league). The people are great and the matches are generally good. I've had some spare time the last week though and decided to give the Blackbox another go.
Sure, everyone plays here to have fun, and having fun doesn't always mean winning. What makes me kinda irritated though are players that don't care if they win. In this case my opponent had the ball and could score in his turn 5 of second half to tie the score, I didn't have that many players left on the pitch so he could basicly decide when to score. Why do you stall untill turn 8 for a tied game? Surely you generally must take some risks to win (wouldn't be fun otherwise) and the more I think about it I alwasy come to the conclusion that I would always try to score as fast as possible so I get the chance of grabbing the ball and doing a returngoal. Am I the only one that thinks like that?
Edited away some stuff as the rest lost focus.
Sure, everyone plays here to have fun, and having fun doesn't always mean winning. What makes me kinda irritated though are players that don't care if they win. In this case my opponent had the ball and could score in his turn 5 of second half to tie the score, I didn't have that many players left on the pitch so he could basicly decide when to score. Why do you stall untill turn 8 for a tied game? Surely you generally must take some risks to win (wouldn't be fun otherwise) and the more I think about it I alwasy come to the conclusion that I would always try to score as fast as possible so I get the chance of grabbing the ball and doing a returngoal. Am I the only one that thinks like that?
Edited away some stuff as the rest lost focus.
Comments
Posted by Zombie69 on 2009-04-30 21:04:06
Sometimes it's better to ensure a tie than to push for a win and end up with a loss. It's like that in sports, and it's like that in blood bowl too.
Expecting your opponent to do otherwise after you've scored on turn 8 is poor sportsmanship. Just because you won the coin toss, you're allowed to stall for an entire half but your opponent isn't?
Expecting your opponent to do otherwise after you've scored on turn 8 is poor sportsmanship. Just because you won the coin toss, you're allowed to stall for an entire half but your opponent isn't?
Posted by Calcium on 2009-04-30 21:10:10
So you want every coach here to play the same way you do? Yeah, how enlightened of you :/
And zombie69 basically called you a hypocrite in a very diplomatic way....
And zombie69 basically called you a hypocrite in a very diplomatic way....
Posted by Fela on 2009-04-30 21:35:04
Also it's probably a question of optimism vs. pessimism. When i'm in a really good mood sometimes optimism may win, but most times i would probably settle for the tie - my luck is notoriously bad when i'm pressed for time (or is that my natural pessimism talking again..?).
Posted by Ilzhahkha on 2009-04-30 23:08:01
I'm probably not very enlightened, and not a very good coach either (for one thing I really need to play more). Alot of this have to with mentality and expectations, you have some defined idea of how competitive your environment combined with the information of how you think you play.
I like Zombies comment, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. I think the current score and what round/half it is should matter in playdecisions. The amount of risk you can accept for the chance of a win will vary alot between coaches and it will always boil down to a strategic decision when to score.
The part about stalling is quite complex and adressing it entirely in this post will probably make it humongous. You play to ahve fun and I'm quite certain that some don't need to win to have fun, but generally you probably have more fun if you win than if you tie the game?
I like Zombies comment, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. I think the current score and what round/half it is should matter in playdecisions. The amount of risk you can accept for the chance of a win will vary alot between coaches and it will always boil down to a strategic decision when to score.
The part about stalling is quite complex and adressing it entirely in this post will probably make it humongous. You play to ahve fun and I'm quite certain that some don't need to win to have fun, but generally you probably have more fun if you win than if you tie the game?
Posted by Aargh on 2009-04-30 23:22:35
On the first, I sort of agree that a coach should always do his best. This doesn't mean that he should do anything and everything in order to win, but he should at least make an effort. However, stalling is a valid tactic, and if a player chooses to stall until the very last turn, there's nothing wrong with that. If a coach thinks he has more to gain by stalling out a draw than trying to win at the risk of losing, then that's that coach's choice. It's not a choice I'd easily make, but I can certainly imagine situations where it's perfectly viable.
In the last paragraph, you're just plain whining. Some coaches like to play a risky game, and sometimes it pays off. That's just the nature of the game, and it's something you should learn to deal with. If a coach makes a risky play and beats you with it, then you're just being spiteful if you call that a bad play. Sure luck factors into the equasion, but luck is a big factor in any game of blood bowl. If that luck is what's bothering you, you should blame the game, not the players.
In the last paragraph, you're just plain whining. Some coaches like to play a risky game, and sometimes it pays off. That's just the nature of the game, and it's something you should learn to deal with. If a coach makes a risky play and beats you with it, then you're just being spiteful if you call that a bad play. Sure luck factors into the equasion, but luck is a big factor in any game of blood bowl. If that luck is what's bothering you, you should blame the game, not the players.
Posted by PainState on 2009-04-30 23:59:40
Well I can understand your perspective and agree with most of your points.
BUT You crossed the line man
A thrice niggle monster skilled mini? Why did you have to "bag" on the poor niggled mini. If he is trully a monster skilled mini, lets say CL/RSC/MULT/BLOCK and Tackle Mini. I would apoth him back into every game and play with him even if he had 10 niggles. You obviously dont like the big guys and in your mind any normal coach would have retired the beast ages ago just out of the Niggle prinicpal that you dont play with them. That one comment alone sent me through the roof and thus Now I dont agree at all with anything you said. SO please apologize in a nice tone to the Minatour and maybe he will let you off with a pass.
Thank you
BUT You crossed the line man
A thrice niggle monster skilled mini? Why did you have to "bag" on the poor niggled mini. If he is trully a monster skilled mini, lets say CL/RSC/MULT/BLOCK and Tackle Mini. I would apoth him back into every game and play with him even if he had 10 niggles. You obviously dont like the big guys and in your mind any normal coach would have retired the beast ages ago just out of the Niggle prinicpal that you dont play with them. That one comment alone sent me through the roof and thus Now I dont agree at all with anything you said. SO please apologize in a nice tone to the Minatour and maybe he will let you off with a pass.
Thank you
Posted by PainState on 2009-05-01 00:03:37
Ok my serious point now. Yes it can be frustrating when you realize that your opponeet is going to slow play it and probally accept the tie. But in the end there is nothing you can do about that. The only way to stop that is to allow overtime but in how hum ranked/Box games that is not worth it.
I have setteled for the tie numerous times, did not like it but in the end settling for the tie seems to make my guys live longer. When ever I go all out to win or prevent losing Nuffle does not like that and I end up losing my best players to KIA in my attempts to stop my opponeet.
I have setteled for the tie numerous times, did not like it but in the end settling for the tie seems to make my guys live longer. When ever I go all out to win or prevent losing Nuffle does not like that and I end up losing my best players to KIA in my attempts to stop my opponeet.
Posted by Azure on 2009-05-01 00:07:34
I actually agree with you a lot. However, in a open environment there is little that can be done. Honestly, it is even worse in some leagues as well. I have been in leagues where one person does not care about winning the league - just about being able to use their Khemri where folks can not dodge them...and just tries to destroy the other teams...I find this behavior worse because it is like a professional sports team not competing to win - but only attempting to spoil other teams' chances.
Anyway:
- I always go for the win...even though it may cost me the game (and has many times) - I still prefer a win over a draw by a huge amount. This is personal preference however - I get ticked when people play for a draw, but try not to flame them about it. Although I will curse them out to my monitor and may not play them in the future.
- Bad play (fouling with eye on them/other stuff) and then being saved by the dice has happened to everyone - it sucks being beaten by a noob lucker. This is one reason I tend to try to play the best coaches I can find - avoid the noob lucker stuff.
Anyway:
- I always go for the win...even though it may cost me the game (and has many times) - I still prefer a win over a draw by a huge amount. This is personal preference however - I get ticked when people play for a draw, but try not to flame them about it. Although I will curse them out to my monitor and may not play them in the future.
- Bad play (fouling with eye on them/other stuff) and then being saved by the dice has happened to everyone - it sucks being beaten by a noob lucker. This is one reason I tend to try to play the best coaches I can find - avoid the noob lucker stuff.
Posted by Ilzhahkha on 2009-05-01 02:14:22
It's kinda sad that alot of the comments are directed at my last paragraph, and after reading it through I realized I should have worded it differently.
I *do* become annoyed at some stuff in the game (even if I usually don't say much or anything about it ingame), and in a way i certainly disapprove of the stuff since they don't make sense to me mathematically - if you want to win. There are certainly other reason for making playdecisions (especially for using a cool mino) and hopefully those reason make the game more fun for the player.
A note on RNG-stuff: Every coach has a different level of risktaking built into his game, I for one tend to block alot more 1d than you healthily should. However if you want to win there is usually some sort of correct action, this is the best path. Even if you don't know what's best you can generally (or rather hopefully) know what's 'good'. No matter the outcome it's always the decision to take the risk that's correct/incorrect (or somewhere inbetween). Even if the dice hates me I will accept the outcome, but I still dislike seeing 'incorrect' play in my (or others) games. Don't take this as I can decide what plays are good and bad, there are (hopefully) alot of other coaches that can make a better analysis of boardsituations but even I can know some actions are just 'fun' and not actually 'good'.
As a sidenote to this: It would actually be quite interesting to discuss individual plays or such things on the forums since that has proven to be a good way to raise skill in chess (and other sports/games).
Also this has nothing to do with slowplay (or stalling however you want to call it), rather the intention of getting results. I have played alot of different games on almost the entire spectrum of competivity and alot of this is probably a rant about how the blackbox is not for me as a player.
I *do* become annoyed at some stuff in the game (even if I usually don't say much or anything about it ingame), and in a way i certainly disapprove of the stuff since they don't make sense to me mathematically - if you want to win. There are certainly other reason for making playdecisions (especially for using a cool mino) and hopefully those reason make the game more fun for the player.
A note on RNG-stuff: Every coach has a different level of risktaking built into his game, I for one tend to block alot more 1d than you healthily should. However if you want to win there is usually some sort of correct action, this is the best path. Even if you don't know what's best you can generally (or rather hopefully) know what's 'good'. No matter the outcome it's always the decision to take the risk that's correct/incorrect (or somewhere inbetween). Even if the dice hates me I will accept the outcome, but I still dislike seeing 'incorrect' play in my (or others) games. Don't take this as I can decide what plays are good and bad, there are (hopefully) alot of other coaches that can make a better analysis of boardsituations but even I can know some actions are just 'fun' and not actually 'good'.
As a sidenote to this: It would actually be quite interesting to discuss individual plays or such things on the forums since that has proven to be a good way to raise skill in chess (and other sports/games).
Also this has nothing to do with slowplay (or stalling however you want to call it), rather the intention of getting results. I have played alot of different games on almost the entire spectrum of competivity and alot of this is probably a rant about how the blackbox is not for me as a player.
Posted by Zombie69 on 2009-05-01 18:54:09
Since you made an analogy with chess, let me ask you this : do you think that all the top chess players are lame? After all, when they play the black pieces against a relatively equal opponent, they play to tie, not to win. If they played to win, they would probably lose.
Same goes for Blood Bowl when losing 1-0 after the first half. It may make more sense at that point to play to tie rather than to win, depending on the situation.
If you don't like people doing this, then choose to kick after winning the coin toss, and when down 1-0 after the first half, show them how you intend to win!
Same goes for Blood Bowl when losing 1-0 after the first half. It may make more sense at that point to play to tie rather than to win, depending on the situation.
If you don't like people doing this, then choose to kick after winning the coin toss, and when down 1-0 after the first half, show them how you intend to win!
Posted by Calcium on 2009-05-01 19:00:49
/Agrees with Zombie.
This is still a 'you don't play the way I want you to play...ergo you suck' Blog.
Simple.
This is still a 'you don't play the way I want you to play...ergo you suck' Blog.
Simple.
Posted by asharak on 2009-05-02 07:06:35
Not sure if someone mentioned it already but....
What were the races? If I were Khemri playing against Skaven or Woodies or something I'd stall it out too, far more chance of them scoring than me. Reverse the races & I'd score.
Basically if I think I've a good chance of winning by scoring I'll do it, if not I wont so as to not lose...
What were the races? If I were Khemri playing against Skaven or Woodies or something I'd stall it out too, far more chance of them scoring than me. Reverse the races & I'd score.
Basically if I think I've a good chance of winning by scoring I'll do it, if not I wont so as to not lose...
Posted by Ilzhahkha on 2009-05-02 08:06:16
Winning and losing are always about the situation, and everything need to be taken in it's content. Top chess players might try to tie as black (I'm not good enough to count myself as a top player, my local rating was at it's highest only at the equivalent of 1900 elo), but at least part of this discussion is about the difference between winning and losing.
Generally when top players play the do it in some kind of tournament structure where there are several matches and there is a high motivation for winning (even if the condition to win is very difficult). This is probably what I as a player would want the parts of fumbbl that I like to be (and writing a blog entry that a very limited amount of people will read is probably about as far I will take that). The blackbox could in my opinion need abit more incentives to actually win, since atm there is not that much difference in winning and losing a game (this is probably the part where people will start screaming that I should play ranked tournaments instead).
Generally when top players play the do it in some kind of tournament structure where there are several matches and there is a high motivation for winning (even if the condition to win is very difficult). This is probably what I as a player would want the parts of fumbbl that I like to be (and writing a blog entry that a very limited amount of people will read is probably about as far I will take that). The blackbox could in my opinion need abit more incentives to actually win, since atm there is not that much difference in winning and losing a game (this is probably the part where people will start screaming that I should play ranked tournaments instead).