Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Absoclass

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

210 profile views
  1. Blacksmiths Theme Song

    With not much to talk about, let's shitpost instead. This is not up to discussion. This IS the Blacksmith's walk-on song.
  2. What do you love about the Hunters?

    Offensive control. I really love control. Morticians do it well but do it defensively (and are a little too edgelordy for me). Hunters might not be the perfect team, but what they want to do is something I immensely enjoy. They're thinky, they punish mistakes, they're aggressive.
  3. New Hunters info in SFG blog

    Ulfr don't read this . . . . . . . . . . . . Greyscales hello
  4. Why the Angel hate?

    I also think Angel is exceedingly good at retrieving a ball kicked to your backlines as well as in the face of conceding a goal. Having a 10" kick sweeper in your backlines can remove yet another option that your opponent has when it comes to killing a ball. Which is my favorite thing about Fish.
  5. Newish to the Milwaukee area and am noticing there are a TON of stores around, many of whom sell product but none I've found that have consistent groups. Is anyone aware of a Milwaukee Guild Ball scene at all? I'd much prefer to stay in town then to drive to Madison or Chicago.
  6. Steamcon USA

    SteamconUS should be a cruise that leaves out of Florida and tours the Caribbean for a week. Just change it to Steamcon NA and it'll still make sense.
  7. June 2017, where do you see the meta?

    So this may be where my own lack of understanding hinders my opinions. I'm not particularly familiar with the pro-chess scene or the game theories within it. I think your point is what I was trying to get to, but lacked the knowledge to say it so succinctly. Thanks for taking the time to say in very few words, what I think I was trying to say in... well... more than very few.
  8. June 2017, where do you see the meta?

    Nah, dog. Not you. I forgot I deleted my quote in there. No need to defend how you play the game, not here to attack anyone. Edit: It's worth noting that I never said RoboBall players don't tilt. Not tilting is a skill and so, in the case of my argument, it falls under the "Better player wins every time" category of not being particularly useful to discuss.
  9. June 2017, where do you see the meta?

    Okay. My weekend is over! When comparing players of similar playstyles, you must assume equal skill in order to have any conversation about it other than "Well the better player will win." Because of that, when comparing 2 risk averse analytical players, I assumed equal skill as I had something specific to say about a match up like that and saying "When Jordan plays Jordan, the better Jordan will win" is largely useless. Without assuming equal skill, your several hundred words you wrote could just be reduced to "Well whoever is better will win." and I don't think that anyone wants such reductive attitudes when talking about specific things. I find it curious that you read my post and concluded that I somehow think 40% and 80% are the same thing (conceding those are random numbers but the point remains)? I was either terrible at explaining it, or you're being reductive in order to disagree. I'll assume the former and try and explain it more clearly. I think it's important to say, before I get into this, that I there's a stark difference between me and you deep dish boys, in how we fundamentally think. I think you guys tend respect the hard numbers in a way that ignores things that cannot be quantified. I think I err on the other side of the spectrum. Not that I don't respect math, I'm not a monster or a moron, but I consider things like "risk" in guild ball to be relative, not exclusively an expression of likelihood based on percentages. Oh and you guys very clearly hate whimsy. That being said, what I was talking about when I was claiming that risk aversion and risk taking are similar, it was exclusively in the context of 2 risk averse players playing each other. Which was assuming the premise that I feel was the whole thesis of your original post, that risk averse playing is the right way to play Guild Ball competitively and people will start playing that way in order to win events. If 2 players are making their decisions based on a similar threshold of success, both players are playing risky Guild Ball. Y'know, like, "When everyone is super, no one will be." The reason I even bring this up isn't actually to make some grand sweeping point about the future of Guild Ball meta in terms of playstyles. It was more to ponder a scenario that I was hoping folks would weigh in on. I am curious what happens when everyone is playing RoboBall and fate is not kind to all of them. They miss one too many 80% shots, their opponents dice never seem to fail and they decide that playing in a way that is assuming a great amount of success makes failure too punishing. I wonder if those people start playing a game by feet instead of inches. Making large, risky decisions that when they work, offer a large advantage over their opponents. I think we saw this in the WCFinals. When Jordan's high percentage play didn't work out, it meant he lost the game. When Tim's lower percentage play didn't work out (his missed Mist goal) he was left with options. Obviously this is one game and I completely understand that. Please understand that my entire foundation of opinion is not based on this one game I watched on the internet. But I feel it still serves to illustrate the point, expectation that a high percentage play is going to work can be dangerous. Expectation that a low percentage play isn't going to work, can also be. I feel that it is because of this that we have certainly not seen the last of Big Dick Guild Ball at top tables and instances of RoboBall tallying losses from them. It is why I truly don't think it is as cut and dry as your initial post makes it out to be. TL;DR I think good guild ballers will be robots with big dicks.
  10. June 2017, where do you see the meta?

    I have a response to your response but I'm moving this weekend and don't have time to respond until the weekend is over. Briefly, I'll say that I need to clarify some things and am definitely not saying that 80% and 40% are the same thing.
  11. June 2017, where do you see the meta?

    TAKE THIS QUIZ TO FIND OUT WHICH GUILD BALL PLAYER YOU ARE MOST LIKE. THE RESULTS WILL SHOCK YOU! According to Buzzfeed I’m 60% Tim, 30% Trent, 7% Jordan, and 3% Samantha? I like players like Tim. Players like Tim “Big Dick Plays” W. are exciting to watch and exciting to play. This of course has nothing specifically to do with aggro-style players winning or losing big events. It’s just a thing I like. Oh and this is literally based on 1 game that I watched. So maybe some good ole fashion grains of salt are to be taken with it. I would completely and totally agree with you if finals games were a BO3. I think in that situation, the more conservative, more consistent player wins the majority of the time. You see it all the time in professional sports. The teams that play fast and loose, and fire off low percentage shots or passes tend to lose series’ over more disciplined, and patient teams. They may get a few games as the numbers go in their favor, but the more games they play the more the numbers get normalized and the stronger consistency becomes. This is why mid-season series of most sports, barring an emotional rivalry, are largely boring. It is not hard to look at the stats and past performances and determine the winner. Especially when one team is just empirically better than the other. I find it fascinating that we watched the same game and came to completely different conclusions. But before I continue, I think there’s a condition that must be made clear. There is no merit in lolsorandom Guild Ball. What I don’t want to be taken away from this is the notion that you can “just do whatever” and it’ll work out. This is more about the merits of recognizing when a lower percentage risk is absolutely worth it vs. playing Guild Ball strictly by the numbers. Okay. In Guild Ball, as more players move toward your Jordan style of play, does decision making become predictable? Does the decision tree start to shrink as you become more and more dictated by success rates? Is the “right” decision always the one with the highest chance of success? Assuming equal skill and no mistakes in decision making, the only determining factor between 2 Jordans, other than inherent faction balance, is the randomness of dice, and in that way, doesn’t RoboBall (I refuse to let a playstyle be named after Jordan, damnit) Guild Ball become similarly risky to the way Tim plays? When you do everything you can to hedge your bets and you still come up short, and your opponent doesn’t, doesn’t that kind of become the same thing as taking risks? I think because of these things, we have not seen the end of Big-Dick-Guild Ball beating RoboBall. Sports analysts have these discussions all the time, it seems. Hell, Moneyball is literally a movie around a real life instance of baseball being looked at the way Jordan looks at Guild Ball. It’s not a perfect analogy, obviously Guild Ball and baseball are different games. But I think there are a lot of similarities. Ultimately what I believe makes a strong contender in the Guild Ball scene is someone who can look at the game like all Jordan, Trent, and Tim. Who can know their percentages but also evaluate when risks are an acceptable path to victory. Who say “Okay, this is a 30% chance to get way ahead, what do I lose in terms of momentum (little m) if it doesn’t work out.” I think there are more factors to Guild Ball than the numerical chance of success, and I think recognizing and employing those factors in your decision making will be what leads you to a World Championship win more than exclusively raw numbers.
  12. Preliminary Season 3 Power Rankings

    Also, Bushel's Cabbage Punt seems:
  13. So you're right here. I did misunderstand the "Fight Us" rule. I interpreted it as "We're going to say what we want to say and if you disagree you're welcome to try and prove us wrong by playing us." I obviously didn't listen carefully enough when you explained it, or came into your initial explanations with my own predispositions. That's my bad. Thanks for clearing it up and also for being very open to criticism. It actually means a lot.
  14. Preface: I'm not angry or personally offended. The first part is tongue-in-cheek. The second is just a criticism. I can't imagine why people think Jordan might not be approachable or a decent human being with statements like "He was playing uh... I don't even remember, doesn't matter, it was pretty easy." or "The overall quality of the British players, I was actually sort of surprised, I didn't find it to be particularly high." Who could POSSIBLY construe and image of a person who might actually be an unpleasant nightmare from such charisma! If I have a criticism about your podcast it is actually how you guys talk about games. In the past 2 episodes (both laden with chats about games you've played) you really just use those games as a way to criticize and borderline ridicule your opponents. I feel like this would be passable if you offered any actual useful information in recaps. Strategic highlights, strange interactions, really anything but "This player took X and that was dumb so I won." You guys are at your best when you're doing what you did in the back half of the episode. Talking about models, talking about strategy, talking about the meta, or high level concepts. You guys are #insufferable when you're talking about games. I know you have a "f**kin' fight us" policy but the reality is that it actually doesn't matter how good you are or are not at the game, it's still a shared social experience that deserves some ounce of reckoning. I don't think being polite at the table means anything if you turn around and blast folks on the Internet. I genuinely think you guys do very good work aside from that one specific aspect. The information in this episode was great and fun to listen to.
  15. Vassal Bug/Suggestion Thread

    You guys just changed my life. Thank you.