Talk Fantasy Football

K, I'm learning how to ensure I always have a matchup, and often a good one, in FUMBBL Ranked. Tell me if this is smart.

1) My favorite play-style is ST3 bash. So I'm making bash teams to keep in all TV ranges.
1M-1.09M Pact: maintain 4x Block, 1x Leader, 6 more skills of choice, limit one per player, 2 instances each, like slower, harder-hitting Humans. No damage skills: I don't want players to advance too fast, nor do I want to scare anybody off. Blocking skills ok.
1.1M-1.25M Humans: just stay trim, don't worry about particulars.
1.25M-1.45M Pact: no mutations, no 0-1 players: just a bunch of slow Human Blitzers. Once 1.45 becomes impossible, build them up into SE territory with big guys, start mutating, build a new team for 1.1-1.25, and let A Short-Term Effect rise a level.
1.45M-1.6M Humans: again, stay trim.
1.6M+ Humans: They were a "no Dodge" outfit, but now they have a Catcher, 'cause they have some recovery to do after a bad beating.
2) I think I'm figuring out what people will stand off or cherrypick against (multiple CPOMB, a few ClawMB, Dorfs or Zons of any sort) and what they will play against readily (one TPOMB or CPOMB doesn't scare anybody). I think I'm figuring out what people mis-evaluate. I think it's called mass-Block/Guard.
3) I have a take-all-fair-matchups policy, and a 2-minute policy if I think I'm being cherrypicked. I don't intend to change this.
4) Because I don't want ALL my matches to be just the same, I activate teams nobody wants to play along with these guys, and greenlight "fair" games against standoff cheesemonsters to goad them into playing my human-types.

Does this make sense? Is it too much gaming? Should I just go to Box? There are things I really like about Ranked. I can get games this way: it is working. Not just newbs, either. I'd be minmaxing just as much, but to different parameters. I think this one produces more fun games. Does anybody else have a better way around the standoff problem?

Forget Ranked and Box. Play all league. It is way more fun and personable. I only play rank and box when I'm bored. And thanks to my recent purchase of an Xbox and Call of Duty BOII I don't have to worry about that any more.

However, based on what you've posted I would say that's a solid plan. There's no telling if it will work the way you've intended without testing it though. I'd say just start playing it and see how it goes. You can make changes to the plan on the fly and you've likely given it more thought then most people have already.

Oh, and I totally get that Lore Rats Aren't Get Warm has no H. In his honor, when he dies, I will hire

Short A Letter, We Manag

Shock get way too many games for a 15-4-4 record, I think 'cause I activate these guys at the same time.

As a somewhat related point, I use a multi-team strategy in Box.

If I want to build my Lizardmen (1370), and I think there's a realistic chance that a min-max coach is active at that range when I'm activating, I'll activate them along with a 1400 fodder team (like Khemri or Orcs), that I enjoy playing but don't care about.

Then, if a low TV team comes along, it'll pair against my lizzies, but if there's a higher TV team, it'll pair against my bash, therefore mostly ensuring my lizzies get games against lower TV opposition. Go cherrypicking!

This isn't cherrypicking.

I offer my opponents a mean-looking Pact team. They sniff at it. Then I offer them similar-value Dorfs, Orcs, and Zons. They greenlight the Pact.

mattgslater wrote:I think this one produces more fun games.

For yourself, I take it? You've got two no big-guy Pact there. If it's not noob-hunting, then I don't know what is.

Ullis wrote:

mattgslater wrote:I think this one produces more fun games.

For yourself, I take it? You've got two no big-guy Pact there. If it's not noob-hunting, then I don't know what is.

Neither of them sports a cpomb killer so can't really see the big issue. Would you rather play an orc or dwarf team at similar tv?

Ullis wrote:

mattgslater wrote:I think this one produces more fun games.

For yourself, I take it? You've got two no big-guy Pact there. If it's not noob-hunting, then I don't know what is.

This makes me bristle, because it's pretty close to the exact opposite of the spirit of what I'm doing.

Welcome to Ranked is no-big-guy now 'cause I had to fire the Ogre to keep them under 1.1M (was running 12 men... too many skill-ups). They haven't actually played a game without a big guy yet, nor with an 11-man roster (though they have fielded 11 with MNGs), but they're going to have to get used to it, as I target 1M+FF with them. I think I'm going to cut 3-skill players as a matter of course with that team. Still, I have a hard time envisioning No-MB Pact as cheesy. They don't even have any Guards!

For Shock, that's a mix of situation and minmax. They're essentially slow Humans, with the caveat that I don't need doubles for Guard or MB on the linos. At some point soon, they'll get two more big guys, and maybe then I'll start kitting them out with Claw and stuff, but they'll then be up in the 1.8 range where people expect that sort of thing. It's TV management, not TV minmax, though: I don't have a Leader on that team, so they could be a lot cheaper for the same impact if I was feelin' it.

Technically, though, the accusation of noob-hunting (or at least rook-hunting) is quite accurate with regard to WtR. They're designed to be just small enough that a veteran coach with a rookie team might take a game with them. But it's not 'cause I want to pound on newbies. It's 'cause I don't want to have to make a new team every week, and I wanna be able to play some rookie-ball.* If I pimped them out, it wouldn't work. I mean, 11 Marauders, Apo, 2 TRR, Leader leaves me room for 12 skills or 11 and an elf. Certainly I could come up with something better than 4x Block, 1x Block/Tackle, and a Blodge elf, no? Sure I could budget for two CPOMBers, but who would play me if I did that? I figure one Blodge, and probably a Guard soon, is all the cheese a rookie team needs to face.

* Don't confuse rook for noob. There is a little overlap, but when great coaches make new teams they're 1M too. Besides, it's hard to win with rookie Pact. @ 1M gold, they're just not easy to play.

Getting matches in Ranked is a bit of a skill in itself.

There are always accusations that it is a haven of cherrypickers and there certainly are a number of infamous coaches who do prey on newbies. But there are plenty of competitive and fun coaches to take on as well.

Like with most things in life you’ll get out what you put in. So if you only put bash teams on gamefinder then expect to mostly play other bashers. Equally if you are a good sport and try to engage the other coach then you’ll get a reputation as a fun opponent. There are quite a few coaches out there who will happily destroy your team, but will make the game fun so they are never short of matches.

Having a team kept artificially low will garner the suspicion of min-maxing, especially pact with no big guys. Even though it looks like you’re avoiding the couple of clawpomb killers and mass scrub lameness that is associated with the worst of B.

mattgslater wrote:They're essentially slow Humans, with the caveat that I don't need doubles for Guard or MB on the linos.

That's a pretty big caveat and one you're taking full advantage of. You know it yourself.

mattgslater wrote:Certainly I could come up with something better than 4x Block, 1x Block/Tackle, and a Blodge elf, no?

You could come up with something a lot worse too! 6 Block, one Tackle for catcher types starting out with Dodge, a superb ball carrier, apo and 12 players.

Is it a good idea to have a team for every team value band?

Yes that seems like a good idea if you want to get games faster.

Should you play grind type teams without damage skills?

Yes, your experience suggest people want to play them and you enjoy their style.

Should you play box?

If you can get a ranked game within 15 minutes there doesn't seem to be any reason for you to play in box...

Overhamsteren wrote: If you can get a ranked game within 15 minutes there doesn't seem to be any reason for you to play in box...

Reason to play in Box: to have a true challenge of your skill and the thrill of surprise.
Ranked teams are not at their full potential (bash teams are less bashy than normal) and bad match ups can be avoided (Amazons avoid Dwarfs).

@MattDakka: Both Ranked and Box can be gamed. In one, you cannot avoid the ones who are gaming the format the hardest; in the other, the ones who are gaming the hardest can avoid you. Ranked is closer to the way the game was designed, and has a built-in mechanism to punish perversity.

Great big winning records often mean you find yourself in cherry-ville for a little bit, where you can play only bad uphill matchups, and maybe a couple other teams in the same spot, but then you get yourself a couple stupid matches up 300k or whatever for giggles*, or against just godlike coaches**, lose one, mess up your roster a little, and now you can get games again until your streak is all Ws and your team is tight like a drum again. Then just go pick some more bad fights!

@Ullis: Yeah, all S-access is a wonderful thing. And they're all 6/3/3/8, with no A access. This does not help my cause. They don't dorf up like dorfs do***, though anybody can be a carrier. Unlike Humans, they can't switch to a mobility game in the face of any team that proves too heavy. I get a bunch of Human Linemen, I get to kit them out with lots of Block, Guard, and MB, and then I have to turn every game into a block war and then win that block war with more-or-less Humans.

As for WtR, the intended feeling of my team is about the power level of one that's had just a couple games under its belt, no matter how old it really is. (That's part of why I try to stay over 1M with them, so even the most unwary coach knows off the top that they're not true rookies.) Their opposition generally tends not to be on its first game, either. Soon enough I'll probably end up with some second-skill linos, and when I do, I'll have to drop the Blodge Elf. But the specific composition of this team keeps changing, so whether it's a Blodge guy, or a couple Guards, or 12 men, or whatever specific little piece of goodness fills out the rest of the value: I'm not trying to play with a hand behind my back, just to play a fun team that never goes too terribly far beyond rookie level.

* Thank you, Christer, for changing the 15% formula! The new one still isn't perfect, but it's good, and that's good.

** The best thing about Ranked is that you don't have to find matches in gamefinder. If I want a fair matchup, I'll open a chat window, and if I see a friend or a coach I know is right at my level, I'll hit them up. This is pretty much the only way I ever get to play some of my best FUMBBL friends, like BattleLore and Oly1987: I'm normally gaming only in their wee hours, so we kind of have to schedule it. Gamefinder is best when I just want to see what happens.

*** That's not cheeseball! This is cheeseball. So is this. My team list is not at all devoid of cheese, I'm just not doing it here.

MattDakka wrote:

Overhamsteren wrote: If you can get a ranked game within 15 minutes there doesn't seem to be any reason for you to play in box...

Reason to play in Box: to have a true challenge of your skill and the thrill of surprise.
Ranked teams are not at their full potential (bash teams are less bashy than normal) and bad match ups can be avoided (Amazons avoid Dwarfs).

I’d argue B teams are not at their full potential. Many of them are designed solely to take on bash teams of equal TV.

Because of the limited variety in opposition, (especially at high TV) they can maximise their bash potential. This works for that environment but would not be effective when facing off against a diverse array of teams where winning was the most important factor.

In other words League division FTW.

mattgslater wrote:@MattDakka: Both Ranked and Box can be gamed. In one, you cannot avoid the ones who are gaming the format the hardest; in the other, the ones who are gaming the hardest can avoid you. Ranked is closer to the way the game was designed, and has a built-in mechanism to punish perversity.

Great big winning records often mean you find yourself in cherry-ville for a little bit, where you can play only bad uphill matchups, and maybe a couple other teams in the same spot, but then you get yourself a couple stupid matches up 300k or whatever for giggles*, or against just godlike coaches**, lose one, mess up your roster a little, and now you can get games again until your streak is all Ws and your team is tight like a drum again. Then just go pick some more bad fights!

The game is balanced around the concept of getting a good distribution of different opponent teams (in Ranked you can skew this easily by refusing the bad match ups and accepting the good ones).
For example Amazons are really unbalanced when they can avoid Dwarfs and Chaos Dwarfs, while in Box they get their share of Dwarfs and Chaos Dwarfs.
Gaming the Box is harder, and you ever risk to face a nasty clawpomber team which destroys yours.
In Ranked you can happily avoid such opponents and keep on farming your team for a Major.
In a true competitive environment you don't get to choose your opponent, competitiveness is playing against whoever happens to be paired against you, not choosing the easy matches you like.
Yes, some ranked coaches are not picky about their matches and will take every challenge no matter what, but I think the majority accepts/refuses matches if they are good/bad (human nature and common sense).
Now... I'm not against the idea of coaches arranging matches freely, but I'm against the idea that their win rate% and CR is affected by these matches.
Ranked thus should be an unranked, open challenge environment (like League division now, but without a schedule).

@spubbba: League division doesn't allow you to play 10 matches in a day if you are in the mood.
I play in a FUMBBL league but it's so sloooow.