Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Mako

      Tales of Infamy   12/13/2017

      Looking for more Guild Ball content? Just in the last week we've had new episodes of Singled Out, Double Dodge, Strictly the Worst and Don't Touch the Beard, as well as blogs from ForestRambo and MidwestWargaming! Check out Tales of Infamy in the Guild Ball section
Wild Rose

Idea for Thresher Change

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

From what I've read the games was going to be 11-0 after the imitative roll was lost due to 3 players ripe to be taken out. So that's a very different picture to look at than the one you paint.

 

 

You're right, it's worse. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more food for thought - the nine Farmers players in the SteamCon LCQ went a combined 28-20.

I think what we saw was the "perfect storm" (shout out to @Slothrop Facebook post) of two very strong players piloting a good team that the meta had very little experience facing. 

I trust Steamforged enough (due to previous player adjustments) that if the Farmers are still dominating events over the next few months that a fix will happen. 

Until then I intend to try cracking the Thresher/Farmers puzzle as best I can.

Edit - correction - it was @TheCurkov Facebook post 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alphadork said:

Some more food for thought - the nine Farmers players in the SteamCon LCQ went a combined 28-20.

Considering Botts and Wattie went a combined 11-1, this means that the other 7 went 17-19?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the INF is that worrying, wouldn't a first step be to drop Jackstraw and Millstone to 2/3 rather than 3/3? Also, how do the rules on Cocky and Sturdy interact? I thought they both get triggered by the first :KD:/condition applied - wouldn't the first :KD: trigger both so they both go/if you don't use one you've missed your chance as the play says '...may ignore first condition...'? Having both on a single player isn't going to stop 2 :KD: is it? On the same subject, why not change Take One For The Team to be once per turn, Millstone may take the condition for someone in 6"? Then the Farmer has to carefully consider when to use it (fits with the 'Options' design philosophy of GB as well).

Counter charge is fine - people work around Brick and Marbles and Compound and Tenderiser, they will work around Tater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheLieutenant said:

I'm gonna say a couple things I said over the weekend while at SCUS, because obviously this is a super hot topic right now. 

1. If the rules for Obulus or Corsair or Ballista or insert-good-captain here were released 6 months ago and one of the best players in the world picked them up and played 50-60 games with them while most other people had only played 2-3 games against them, yeah, that person would probably do pretty well with that captain too.

2. Thresher requires players to modify the way they play against him. Playing the usual way you're used to playing the game will probably net you a lot of losses against him. I believe as players get more experience against him in the next few months, this will start showing. 

3. It's much, much too early to nerf anything right now. Obviously, we'd be fools to ignore the high win rate, but we'd also be fools to hastily nerf something in a panic. Please bear in mind that we have to look at the health of the game across the next year, two years, five years, not just the next three months. If there is a problem, taking the time to get the correct fix to the problem is just as important, arguably more important, than fixing it in the first place. A fix that we then have to fix again in three months time is not a fix. 

This, this, this, a thousand times, this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strange issue, to be honest. 

It's not like Thresher was a surprise, so the other Best Players In The World getting caught out so comprehensively could maybe be placed with them for not studying up enough or not getting any games in with/against Thresher. 

That said, Thresher has wiped the floor with everyone at any event he was available for. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lee said:

This is a strange issue, to be honest. 

It's not like Thresher was a surprise, so the other Best Players In The World getting caught out so comprehensively could maybe be placed with them for not studying up enough or not getting any games in with/against Thresher. 

That said, Thresher has wiped the floor with everyone at any event he was available for. 

cough 

except the SteamCon UK LCQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

cough 

except the SteamCon UK LCQ.

Except there where - according to the rankings - there was not one Thresher player with a comparable skill level to the 600+ top dogs gathered there. A better player is still a better player. Thankfully Thresher is NOT that OP to override this. He just helps to decide roughly even coach skill matchups. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Csonti said:

Except there where - according to the rankings - there was not one Thresher player with a comparable skill level to the 600+ top dogs gathered there. A better player is still a better player. Thankfully Thresher is NOT that OP to override this. He just helps to decide roughly even coach skill matchups. :) 

Hold on, Henry beat @EpicChris who was using Thresher at the UK LCQ. Chris is certainly no slouch. He's not ranked as high as Henry, but he's certainly one of the "names" on the UK tournament circuit. He probably would be ranked higher if he didn't flit around the guilds so much ;-). Longshanks doesn't tend to reward experimenting at a tournament. Longshanks "bookie" feature puts it only 55%-45% in Henry's favour given the guilds used, If you clear the guilds it switches to 55% in Chris' favour. Not such an easy win for Henry, and a little disingenuous to Chris to suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, malladin.ben said:

Hold on, Henry beat @EpicChris who was using Thresher at the UK LCQ. Chris is certainly no slouch. He's not ranked as high as Henry, but he's certainly one of the "names" on the UK tournament circuit. He probably would be ranked higher if he didn't flit around the guilds so much ;-). Longshanks doesn't tend to reward experimenting at a tournament. Longshanks "bookie" feature puts it only 55%-45% in Henry's favour given the guilds used, If you clear the guilds it switches to 55% in Chris' favour. Not such an easy win for Henry, and a little disingenuous to Chris to suggest otherwise.

2

Longshanks bookie feature is well... an interesting feature. I'd not rely on it too much.

As for the concrete matchup. It was streamed and I watched that game. Chris' setup was really bad, he had to gather the ball with Millstone who is probably the worst pick for this task. As far as I remember he also had incredibly bad luck missing several passes on the crucial first turn. To his credit, he still managed to gather 6 VPs after that catastrophic first turn but all in all the man who played a better game won that match. Maybe the gap between the two is not that much but I think it is not a coincidence that Henry has almost 100 more points in regards to rankings. That is a massive difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thresher isn't unbeatable, no shadow of a doubt. Last weekend I attended a event in Harlow with 3 of us from top 15 in the U.K. I played Thresher 3 times in a row, and won 12-16, 12-9 losing the final of the event 15-6 to Daniel Harwood. 

A player using Thresher can make mistakes, the skill entry level for Thresher isn't huge. We can all tool up Thresher, place a harvest marker in a place he can walk to to rpoc DFTR and kill a player. A player who can capitalize on mistakes can take a game from Thresher if mistakes are made, my two games prior to playing Dan were good examples (That said Micheal made a mistake round 3 and even then he still nearly won but rolled some bad dice and we both agreed no mistakes were made from my self).

Round 4 against Harwood he played pretty flawlessly, we both agreed we played a solid game and neither of us made a mistake and the best I scrapped was 15-6. 

There's really two things that are currently making look Thresher possibly worse than he actually is, while still being slightly above the curve. 

1) This weekend was a pretty big spectacle for the game. Both SCUS/SCUK LCQ's as well as US Nationals and obviously worlds were full to the brim of excellent players, everyone wants to watch those games on stream / here about them. Alex, who I think some people don't appreciate the gauntlet he went through (Went 5-1 at LCQ, went on to win the American Nationals and then win Worlds?) a highly practised Thresher player sweeping all the events at SCUS. It only compounded the talk of Thresher (prior to the event this thread showed he was being discussed). This occurrence does make it very easy for anyone who isn't practiced / played against Thresher to jump on a bandwagon to say he's clearly WTF broken OP and need a change immediately. 

2) He is new, yes those fortunate of us to have the time to proxy against paper dolls, play testers, those who play on Vassal etc have played him for a few months but by and large people have not. That doesn't mean you don't understand how he works but things like Counter- Charge on Tater, Poised on Thresher, threat ranges of the team are all new and can catch people out. Those guys who have played against Thresher once / not at all at there LGS need time to develop a lineup that works into managing Thresher. 

With the above said my personal opinion is that Thresher and the synergies and numbers the team bring to the table / the team puts out are too good / high. It's not by a un beatable margin and I myself by speaking to the community and the people I play with am developing strategies for Thresher. 

I think we will see quality of life changes to the team later down the line. Both Bryce / Jamie have chymed into the conversation so we know that SFG are aware of people's feelings towards him. I have total faith in the SFG team that if something needs to happen it'll happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well reasoned response, FR! 

I would suppose it's been blown up because the worlds best just did not have an answer for him, and he's wrecked face at many other events. Puts the whole thing under a bit more scrutiny. 

"I have total faith in the SFG team that if something needs to happen it'll happen."

Yeah, Shark will get nerfed... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Csonti said:

Longshanks bookie feature is well... an interesting feature. I'd not rely on it too much.

Maybe not. It was a quick illustration. But then again, I think you are mistakenly using the rankings if you are discounting Chris so quickly. Under my old rankings system he was much higher placed than he is under longshanks, purely because he doesn't play the rankings game as well as some. He's a solid player who would give Henry a good run for his money.

Henry knew what to expect against Thresher and had a plan for dealing with him. It's a shame he couldn't make it to Worlds because it might've been a different story if he did ;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Csonti said:

Chris' setup was really bad, he had to gather the ball with Millstone who is probably the worst pick for this task. 

Who do you think he should be gathering the ball with?

If it's Harrow he has to put Thresher off to one side where he doesn't threaten many people or he loses TU and a marker.

If it's Jack I get the chance to kill his markers easily before he can DFT me, and if he wants any momentum he has to pass and so the ball can't be put on Jack (the only remotely safe place to put it). He also can't both threaten DFT and set up Tater at the same time.

If it's anyone else, he doesn't have any harvests down, so Mist has free reign to score immediately without getting countercharged.

Honestly, getting the ball with Millstone and putting her where I have to risk a PB to threaten the ball is definitely Chris's best option. It means I have to spend activations putting Sturdy up on Mist, which gives Chris time to get a bit of mom and move the ball down the line to where it's safer on Jack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

Who do you think he should be gathering the ball with?

 

I think we derailed the thread too much already. Will send you a PM when I get the time to answer in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Csonti said:

I think we derailed the thread too much already. Will send you a PM when I get the time to answer in detail.

I'm curious as well. Why don't you create a new thread for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lee said:

That said, Thresher has wiped the floor with everyone at any event he was available for.

It was already posted in this thread, but worth mentioning again that if you remove Shane and I from the pool at SCUS, Farmers had a winrate below 50% over the weekend. Even if they need a nerf, the argument that they automatically win an event in anybody's hands is not consistently upheld by evidence. And even if qualitative arguments are persuasive, I really don't think there's enough data yet on them to build something meaningful out of winrate alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Slothrop said:

It was already posted in this thread, but worth mentioning again that if you remove Shane and I from the pool at SCUS, Farmers had a winrate below 50% over the weekend. Even if they need a nerf, the argument that they automatically win an event in anybody's hands is not consistently upheld by evidence. And even if qualitative arguments are persuasive, I really don't think there's enough data yet on them to build something meaningful out of winrate alone. 

Just as an aside on that. When we are talking numbers. If we are specifically talking about Thresher (which I suppose we do given the thread name), then we should not confuse farmers winrate (or other statistics) with Thresher win rate. 

There is an argument that there are different players in an LCQ at steamcon too. Some players buy the new toys and stick em on the table for a fun time, then dropping for seminars, and some come prepared looking for that qualifying spot. Anyway, I would not take any super deep conclusions from just these few events. 

And however you want to twist it. The data are still fairly small. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Slothrop said:

It was already posted in this thread, but worth mentioning again that if you remove Shane and I from the pool at SCUS, Farmers had a winrate below 50% over the weekend. Even if they need a nerf, the argument that they automatically win an event in anybody's hands is not consistently upheld by evidence. And even if qualitative arguments are persuasive, I really don't think there's enough data yet on them to build something meaningful out of winrate alone. 

That being said though, what happens to the other Guilds if we take their 2 best performing players out of the mix? I'm sure it also drops pretty noticeably. 

EDIT: Congrats on your victories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pending Forum Suspension said:

That being said though, what happens to the other Guilds if we take their 2 best performing players out of the mix? I'm sure it also drops pretty noticeably. 

It must, I haven't done the numbers other than Masons, which start at below 50% and stay there without their best players. :P Maybe shouldn't have mentioned it at all, I guess my point was more @Warpstoned's, that it simply isn't enough data alone and there's a lot of good reasons why these two SteamCons alone shouldn't be the basis of a huge decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Selfy said:

Someone lend me their Thresher box set and I'll single handedly bring his win-rate down.

I'm way ahead of you, I can't see what all the fuss is about. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slothrop said:

It was already posted in this thread, but worth mentioning again that if you remove Shane and I from the pool at SCUS, Farmers had a winrate below 50% over the weekend. Even if they need a nerf, the argument that they automatically win an event in anybody's hands is not consistently upheld by evidence. And even if qualitative arguments are persuasive, I really don't think there's enough data yet on them to build something meaningful out of winrate alone. 

So YOU need a nerf :D

As I said earlier on it's not like only you had access to the card and model for the last 6 months, so I'm surprised that no one at your level had an answer for him. Because of the size of the event the thrashings (Threshings?) you dished out are more likely to be under the microscope. 

edit - I was thinking earlier how it's a bit shit that your win has been distracted(?) by this, and I haven't helped with chiming in on this thread. I apologise for that. For what it's worth I'm trying to drastically improve my GB game, so I'm trying to get involved in more technical discussions which are clearly above my current grade! 

Edited by Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×