Tophat
Joined: Jun 01, 2006
|
 Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:14 |
 
|
| Quote: | | 7. Also, the change from spp adding to TR to each skill roll adding to TV means that a 200 spp player is the same value at 500 spp... |
You kidding me ?, this is without doubt the best aspect of lrb5 , why on earth should you pay more for a 7skill player who has 7 skills and 500 spps than 1 with 7 skills and 200 spps ?
Equally why should a team like this
Lineman 15spp , block
Lineman 15spp ,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
Lineman 15spp,block
be handicapped to a team like this
Lineman 6spp,+str
Lineman 6spp,+ag
Lineman 6spp,+str
Lineman 6spp,+str
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,+mv
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,leader
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,guard
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,+str
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,block
Lineman 6spp,block |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:35 |
|
Tophat: Yes, because part of the game is called SPP Management. If you leave half your team a couple spp away from skill rolls, or put all your spp on one player, then in LRB 4 you are punished. In LRB5 you are not.
True, 4 doesnt take into account the skill roll you get. But even a team with alot of +stat isnt as dominant as you think - you seriously lack important skills like block until the team is higher TR.
Rob: More expensive to buy yes, but with inducements very very easy to get a decent star. Say I play ~20 TV up, isnt that enough for a chainsaw star + a ref bribe? enough if i stall correctly to get him for almost all the game. With no roll to start it thats really, really good.
Not saying that such inducements are bad, but making the game so full of star players devalues the pregression side of the game, which is its most attractive part IMO. |
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:52 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | Not saying that such inducements are bad, but making the game so full of star players devalues the pregression side of the game, which is its most attractive part IMO. |
Quite frankly, I liked LRB3, which was even fuller of star players: Morg, Griff, Zug and Drakenburg permanently on the roster was a good time for human teams  |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 13:11 |
|
| Optihut wrote: | | Britnoth wrote: | | Not saying that such inducements are bad, but making the game so full of star players devalues the pregression side of the game, which is its most attractive part IMO. |
Quite frankly, I liked LRB3, which was even fuller of star players: Morg, Griff, Zug and Drakenburg permanently on the roster was a good time for human teams |
wood elves with deeproot and his 3 cousins were much more fun  |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 19:39 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | Rob: More expensive to buy yes, but with inducements very very easy to get a decent star. Say I play ~20 TV up, isnt that enough for a chainsaw star + a ref bribe? enough if i stall correctly to get him for almost all the game. With no roll to start it thats really, really good. |
However I've found most of the chainsaw stars are really easy to take out the game with a single hit. Most folks I've talked to say that they get one blitz with the chainsaw and then even if they try to protect him ... he normally gets taken out (ie KO'd or Injured) ... add to this the 1 in 6 chance with only a 50% chance of rerolling for the kick-back taking him out. Then you are left with a 100,000k bribe which means you have to try and foul to get any use of the extra inducement you bought.
I personally would rather get a Bloodweiser Babe than a Chainsaw given the money. My experiences playing against them and with them is that the Chainsaw stars are not worth the inducement value you have to pay for them. Your mileage may vary.
And as for Piling On ... I honestly have been taking Fend and Wrestle as my skills for the lineman on my team. This means that I neutralize both the Block and Piling On skills of the players that you say are so killer. And yes I understand you hate this aspect of the new rules ... ie the counter-skills. But if a lot of folks invest in Piling On in FUMBBL ... then I expect you'll see an increase in Fend to offset it as it totally makes Piling On ineffective.
Also ... I was never anti-foul ... I like fouling as part of the game ... and personally I try to develop a couple players on my teams to address the Piling On player who is prone on the ground waiting for a boot.
As for mutations on the CD team ... we had a lot of feedback that it was great and feedback that it was looking like an error. I will readily admit that in the long term testing of the rules that this may prove out to be too good. It was honestly thought that with the jacked-up Big Guy price and Claw costing the CDs 30k to take that the bash level of the CDs would not be out of bounds with Claw available on doubles.
Taking a look at the MBBL stats so far on average CAS per a match caused by the top 10 races ... we are currently showing:
Khemri: 2.81
Orc: 2.33
Dwarf: 2.25
Chaos Dwarf: 2.15
Nurgle: 1.96
Ogre: 1.94
Chaos Pact: 1.83
Human: 1.82
Norse: 1.82
Chaos: 1.63
So while Claw is a great option for CDs .... it definitely hasn't shot their average CAS per a game into an area that seems unreasonable. And their winning % is still 6th in my league overall so they don't seem out of synch there either.
I realize the MBBL doesn't generate ANYWHERE CLOSE to the number of games of FUMBBL ... but it and the feedback I've had from other leagues is what I can use to test how reasonable certain changes are. And SO FAR ... they look reasonable. Doesn't mean that more data won't prove otherwise ... and the next rules update that doubles to CD might leave the game ... I cannot say.
Looking at the top 2 CAS causing teams in the MBBL ... I have one Piling On player and he's not even the leading CAS causer on his team.
1st: http://www.blood-bowl.net/MBBL/teamView.php?teamid=45
2nd:
http://www.blood-bowl.net/MBBL/teamView.php?teamid=8
Is Piling On a good skill choice now ... yes compared to LRB 4.0 where it sucked eggs. But on the flip side ... having to go prone to use it ... and Sneaky Git and Fend added to the game ... my belief from the feedback I've heard is that it was made a useable skill again without being over the top. Is Piling On/Mighty Blow a great combo now ... yup ... as good as Claw/RSC ... i don't think so ... Claw/RSC didn't have a skill that made it not work and I didn't have to go prone to use Claw/RSC.
Again I look forward to FUMBBL at some point see how the rules work in a mass test environment. I was hoping Ski would have the time to make a Div X version as I would have loved to have FUMBBL feedback during the last two years. When I saw that Ski would not be able to do this ... I dropped 250 hours over my summer vacation into making a PBeM version so that folks online to get us some collected data on how the rules work. So what I'm trying to say Britnoth ... is that I did the best I personally could to listen to all the playtest leagues and review all the data that was available from leagues that had real data to make the ruleset as good as possible.
Some of the items you don't like I had no choices on. IGEMOY, Argue the Call, and Traits were all items that Jervis said 100% had to go whether I agreed with those decisions or not. So while I had a lot of power the last two years to work on the rules ... I had guidelines that I had to follow. So some of the items you don't like feel to Jervis believing they were extras that the game was better off without. Each person's mileage will vary GREATLY on how much they agree with Jervis on those points.
I'm glad you saw some of the early versions ... what you didn't see were the emails from JJ where he said this change was going to happen and unlike 4th edition he wasn't going to back away from it. So as I saw it there was a choice there 2 years ago. Help make JJ's vision for LRB 5.0 as good as possible with the rules that he had for those changes ... or don't help and have the game stay in a form like those early version which would have killed off the game in many ways as they would have been pushed through no matter what. Me ... I like this game too much to leave it to the 2nd option so I helped. I've seen a lot of folks that are big anti-LRB 5.0 that would have liked to throw the dice and see what happened with the 2nd option. FUMBBL and online players would have been unaffected by this dice throw ... but the tournament circuit and league play which is where I get my fun from the game would have been betting a lot if that throw went poorly.
Galak |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 19:47 |
|
Brit, SPP management has become part of the game, but I'd much rather have a system without it. It takes the fun out when you need to think, "wait, I can't score with this one". Team management is important but SPP management is too finicky to be fun for me. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 20:03 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | | Brit, SPP management has become part of the game, but I'd much rather have a system without it. It takes the fun out when you need to think, "wait, I can't score with this one". Team management is important but SPP management is too finicky to be fun for me. |
Exactly.
SPP-Bowl and Age-Bowl lower the fun-factor massively. |
Last edited by Frankenstein on %b %27, %2006 - %20:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 20:03 |
|
Probably better if I directly answer actually these point than the generic I just typed.
| Britnoth wrote: | My main gripes with lrb5:
1. Reduction of skills to reduce the effect of coach skill. No more IGMEOY is the prime example of this. A fluffy, tactical rule is replaced with one that requires no thought. |
Required change from JJ so I'm not saying it was the right thing to do. But this one I had no choice in.
| Quote: | | 2. Introduction in numerous counterskilling skills. LRB4 has only a couple, LRB5 has aproaching a dozen. I do not play BB for a version of Yu-Gi-Oh!Bowl. |
This is one of those you either love or hate I've found. You either like the dynamic of the counter skills or hate them. I love them ... but I understand the camp that don't.
| Quote: | | 3. Huge improvements to some rosters that many already considered really strong. CD with mutations? Come on... appart from strengthening an incredibly strong team already, it goes completely against the fluff. |
Actually it is line with the fluff. In Blood Bowl's history CDs could mutate which was why it came back as JJ like BB moving back more to the 2nd edition feel. The belief was that the increased price Big Guy with mutations on doubles costing 30k each to the player would not actually make the team better ... so far the feedback from leagues is that the team is pretty much equal on power level to LRB 4.0.
| Quote: | | 4. Mutations on normal rolls - for chaos + nurgle while skaven still need doubles. Skaven are the warpstone race... yet now are the really weak cousins. Ubering up PO again to what it was before is also a bneheaded move. Claw MB PO on 3 normal rolls = av9 killing machine. |
Skaven in MBBL win %: 53.67 ... Nurgle 46.63% ... Chaos 43.28% ... Skaven don't need mutations on normal skills roll to compete ... Chaos/Nurgle did just to get close to winning half their games. These numbers are not just MBBL either ... most the leagues have reported the same thing. As for the AV 9 killing machine ... GOOD ... AV 9 has needed something to kill it off for some time now in the game ... in fact ... it points directly to one of your other items below. AV 7 Fend players don't have much to fear from a Claw/MB/Piling On player ... I get to delete two of those skills for just one skill upgrade on my player.
| Quote: | | 5.Nerfing apo... it may not be as bad as it was when first changed, bit its still pretty weak compared to the mighty regen now. |
Mileage will vary on how you feel about this. The apo was weakened to generate more blood that stuck since aging was deleted.
| Quote: | | Nurgles are just weakened chaos with with 9 regen players + free fodder from kills. Ugly. |
That is really not the feedback I've gotten from any league that allows the new Nurgle team. It is really more its own team now and not just weakened chaos ... at least that the feedback I get from the leagues that have actually tried it.
| Quote: | | 6. Removal of traits, nerfing of some skills to compensate. Traits were good. they werent overly complex and kept some players from having nasty combinations. How is all the wrestle/block/sidestep/grab/fend/juggernaut/stand firm/frenzy counterskill crap supposed to make it simpler then? |
Again JJ directed change. He didn't see why you need skills that can only be taken by any player if they roll doubles. Raises the question of if the skill is that good ... why is it that good. So he wanted skills that were just fine to take and didn't need artificially limited by dice rolls to players that would normally have access to them. So this again was a JJ directed change. I don't know that the new counter skills were supposed to make the game easier. One of the goals was to stop the dominace of certain skills in the game and that is where the counter skills came from (again as I said before ... I've found folks either love or hate the counter skills).
| Quote: | | 7. Removal of ageing. There goes the only method to keep the higher armoured teams having even near the same player turnover of the low av teams. Also, the change from spp adding to TR to each skill roll adding to TV means that a 200 spp player is the same value at 500 spp... |
Again Love/Hate. I HATED aging ... it was in my opinion the single worst rule ever in Blood Bowl. Having to FEAR a skill roll because it might make my player worse was just a miserable rule to me. And in the end .... we found we could trade increased blood on the pitch for aging and that was just fine in the end for a lot of folks. Again like I said LOVE/HATE on aging so if you are on the LOVE side ... this argument won't hold water.
| Quote: | | 8. More star players. WTF? Stars were stupidly strong as it is, Often breaking the game at lower TR. Instead of removing the stupid ones, you add lots of other cheaper ones that are really strong. 8-10 TV difference for an induced chainsaw wielding player? |
Chainsaw stars are really not that good (I won't even take them anymore as inducements) and most the other stars when I've played against them and seen others play against are pretty easily handled by the overdog with his players that gave him the TV advantage in the first place.
There ... just wanted to specially answer my thougths on your bad points.
Like brownrob said... doesn't make me right and you wrong ... not for a second ... just expressing my counter point to these items and in some cases saying ... it really comes down to taste on some of these points.
Galak |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 20:19 |
|
I'm absolutely with Galak (and brown rob) here, except for 2 things:
Big Guys still part of tier 1 rosters.
Runesmith removed. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 23:07 |
|
I have no fixed opinion until I played them.
However, I wonder for ogres. Doesn't any playdata show they really really suck? |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 23:28 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | Doesn't any playdata show they really really suck? |
/me thinks that was the plan  |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2006 - 23:36 |
|
/me gives Sk8 permission to smack Pac upside the head. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2006 - 06:22 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | I have no fixed opinion until I played them.
However, I wonder for ogres. Doesn't any playdata show they really really suck? |
In the MBBL so far:
Goblins 28.79% win (66 games)
Halflings 30.00% win (35 games)
Slann: 31.82% win (55 games)
Ogre 32.98% win (47 games)
Chaos Pact 34.15% win (41 games)
Vampire 35.00% win (60 games)
Galak |
|
|
Dia
Joined: Jun 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2006 - 07:54 |
|
Not that anyone is asking my opinion, but here are some things I wish were in LRB5:
-Guard only works in up to two tackle zones. As it is, Guard is the last 'uber skill' completely untouched by LRB5. It should have a limit.
-Longbeards and Chaos dwarves lose Tackle. Longbeards cost 10k less. Dodge would have long term value as a skill if it wasn't handed out as a starting skill to two different teams. Stunties would be fairly competetive. See Zon changes below.
-Dwarf Blitzers gain Tackle and cost 10k more. Dwarves still get the goods on Tackle, but not in spades as before. This would also make the infamously weak dwarf positionals more valuable.
-Dwarf Re-Rolls go up to 50k to counteract the cheaper Longbeards.
-Orcs lose Throwers and Goblins, blitzers cost 90k. This would about put orcs where they should be. Currently they have it all and a bag of chips. At the very least ditch the goblins and make the blitzers cost more, but I don't think they deserve a good passing game too.
-New IGMEOY: Similar 'watching' feature as LRB4, but change the effect to be that you are always spotted on an unmodified 7 for both av and injury, even if you have Sneaky Git. This would give the effect desired without going overboard.
-Use the new Amazons with Fend on the linewomen. Much more balanced roster for the most part, especially if dwarves no longer come with Tackle out of the box.
There are other very minor tweaks that could happen, but I think these changes in particular would make game balance feel like baby-bears bed... just right.
Otherwise, I love LRB5 and think you've done a wonderful job. Keep up the good work! |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2006 - 09:36 |
|
| GalakStarscraper wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | I have no fixed opinion until I played them.
However, I wonder for ogres. Doesn't any playdata show they really really suck? |
In the MBBL so far:
Goblins 28.79% win (66 games)
Halflings 30.00% win (35 games)
Slann: 31.82% win (55 games)
Ogre 32.98% win (47 games)
Chaos Pact 34.15% win (41 games)
Vampire 35.00% win (60 games)
Galak |
I am kind of surprised. I mean AV5 players are going to die fast and they won't skill up. So you basically rely on 6 str 5 players only. Is it the coaches of ogres that are good or what? |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
