Just an idea...

[Zombie]

You be pissed too if after trying to explain such a simple concept as this 41.67% ten thousand times, some people still didn't get it!

[Ghost of Pariah]

People get it but they just don't put as much stock in it as you.

For somebody who gets so mad (and rude) over people with (what you perceive) as lower intelligence you are quite oblivious to the fact that numbers are easily manipulated and that stating a percenatge chance of something doesn't mean alot to some people. Not because they don't understand but rather because they know it's always a meaningful way of looking at it.

You are pitifully ego-centric and ignorant of the flaws in your own numbers. To then consider yourself superior is very silly and shortsighted.

[ZanzerTem]

You be pissed too if after trying to explain such a simple concept as this 41.67% ten thousand times, some people still didn't get it!

Sorry Zombie. We understand 2+2=4, but you are saying 2+2=5, and getting pissed that people don't get it

You yourself even admitted the number was wrong

[Zombie]

For somebody who gets so mad (and rude) over people with (what you perceive) as lower intelligence

It's exactly the opposite. This is so easy that even a child could figure it out. I know that everyone here is intelligent enough to grasp it, and that's why it's even more frustrating that they don't even try to understand it.

You are pitifully ego-centric and ignorant of the flaws in your own numbers. To then consider yourself superior is very silly and shortsighted.

Well, i believe that you are pitiful in your belief that numbers sometimes don't hold true, but that's another story.

[Zombie]

You be pissed too if after trying to explain such a simple concept as this 41.67% ten thousand times, some people still didn't get it!

Sorry Zombie. We understand 2+2=4, but you are saying 2+2=5, and getting pissed that people don't get it :roll:

You yourself even admitted the number was wrong :wink:

The number is right for fouls when the ref is watching you, which is all that it was ever meant to show. All i'm saying is that 4+ followed by anything but a 6 happens 41.67% of the time. That's so simple that a 10 year old could figure it out, if he tried. You're not trying.

[ZanzerTem]

I'm sure you took into consideration counter fouling, more plastic on one side of the die, coaches forgetting to roll IGMEOY, and the chance of your head coach being in the Reserves box and unable to argue the call. When you have these variables, trying to predict the results of dice rolling is impossible.

You number types bug me. There is a lot more to Bloodbowl then "I have a 32.95837% chance of failing this action!"

[Munkey]

You number types bug me. There is a lot more to Bloodbowl then "I have a 32.95837% chance of failing this action!"

At a given critical moment yes but this type of calculation is useful (if not the be all and end all) for analysis of the rules.

What I believe Zombies stat points out is that, with a couple of Dirty Players who you can largely afford to have sent off (i.e. Linemen) you can still get good odds on removing an important opposition player from the pitch even if the ref is watching you.

If you are fouled back the odds become even more favorable as the ref is no longer watching you.

There are obviously other aspects to consider that cannot be so easily worked into the calculation but at least the figure provides a base point to evaluate the situation from.

[Grumbledook]

zombie your adding in the fact the coach argues the call, maybe not everyone does for whatever reason, the straight igmeoy roll with the eye on you is 50 50

[Skummy]

I certainly wouldn't automatically argue if playing a Vampire, Undead or Khemri team.

[Darkson]

I wouldn't agrue the call if a thrall with DP was sent off and run the risk of losing my Vampire Lord.

[Zombie]

I'm sure you took into consideration counter fouling, more plastic on one side of the die, coaches forgetting to roll IGMEOY, and the chance of your head coach being in the Reserves box and unable to argue the call. :roll: When you have these variables, trying to predict the results of dice rolling is impossible.

Counter fouling: brings down your chances of being ejected to 13.89%, but that's another subject entirely, and i don't think (at least i hope) that anybody is disputing the fact that it pays to foul when the ref isn't watching.

More plastic: we don't cheat. If the dice aren't perfectly equal, it will cancel out in the long run, so the probability remains the same.

Forgetting IGMEOY: i assume that people are intelligent enough for that. Usually, when my opponent forgets, i remind him, although i know that i don't have to. But if your opponent doesn't roll for the ref and you don't remind him, that's even more power to fouling. Since i'm attempting to prove that fouling is powerful, i'm keeping it to a minimum to help your cause, not mine. If i can prove that fouling is worth it in the worst of circumstances, then surely it's worth it in all others as well. It's a basic scientific approach.

Head coach unable to argue: i already addressed this. When that happens (if it happens, as it's rather unlikely), your chance of getting sent off goes up to 50%, and i've always said that you should then relax on fouling until the end of the game.

Really, this is a very simple problem, with very few variables, and extremely easy to approach mathematically.

[Zombie]

zombie your adding in the fact the coach argues the call, maybe not everyone does for whatever reason, the straight igmeoy roll with the eye on you is 50 50

Not arguying is just plain stupid, especially now that undeads don't need their coach to regenerate. Vampires aren't currently part of the game. When they become official, depending on the special rules that will apply to them (we don't know yet whether the lord will be a head coach, or whether there'll be a lord at all), we can then discuss the merit of fouling for that team.

[BullBear]

This is enough!

If any BBRC members are out there, PLEEEAAASSSSSEEEE reinstate the card system, or some other form of randomness. Ever since the LRB has come out just about every other thread I've read is percentage numbers and such. IMO, without the random factors, coaches have been taking this game to seriously, and the game has become gutted to a hollow system of probabilities. This kind of number crunching and power-gaming, is NOT what the spirit of BB is about.

To everyone who hangs each move on prior calculations, I don't think it can be done. Though you may stay up all night, at home alone calculating, you can't possibly take into account the position of players, the mind set of the opposing coach, other skills involved, who was drinking heavily the night before, etc.

So, even if a player gets sent off 41% of the time, for my play style that's too much, so no amount of 'math lessons' will prove otherwise.

[Zombie]

To everyone who hangs each move on prior calculations, I don't think it can be done. Though you may stay up all night, at home alone calculating, you can't possibly take into account the position of players, the mind set of the opposing coach, other skills involved, who was drinking heavily the night before, etc.

So, even if a player gets sent off 41% of the time, for my play style that's too much, so no amount of 'math lessons' will prove otherwise.

Statements like that just prove to me that you don't know the power of probabilities and how accurate it is at what it does.

[BullBear]

BullBear wrote:
To everyone who hangs each move on prior calculations, I don't think it can be done. Though you may stay up all night, at home alone calculating, you can't possibly take into account the position of players, the mind set of the opposing coach, other skills involved, who was drinking heavily the night before, etc.

So, even if a player gets sent off 41% of the time, for my play style that's too much, so no amount of 'math lessons' will prove otherwise.


Statements like that just prove to me that you don't know the power of probabilities and how accurate it is at what it does.