40 coaches online • Server time: 10:31
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...goto Post Secret League Americ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
w8lifter



Joined: Jan 21, 2015

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 16:27 Reply with quote Back to top

I've read these threads with interest as I have seen a lot of selective matching in Ranked with certain coaches (300+ games played) having 90+% of their games against 'skill' teams and more than 50% of their games against coaches with less than 100 games played.

Why is that? Reasons could vary but the root is because of this:

BloodBowl was not designed nor intended to be a perpetual play for a team. It was designed pre-computer and is a pen and paper game that was intended for pickup games, league play, tournaments and other limited duration activities. It was a face to face (or PBEM as I have done many times) game that takes about 3 hours or so to play with a much smaller pool of possible players limited by local geography or attending a set event that occurred for a limited time. It had mechanisms in place to reflect the ‘expiration date’ nature of the players such as injury and aging. Not for the Internet when a match can be completed in as little as 45 minutes and a coach <cough>me<cough> can play almost 200 matches in 2 months (yeah, it's a sickness).

This creates a situation where MANY more games are being played. A team with over 20 games played was quite the event when I was playing in the 80s and 90s, now on FUMBBL there are many teams with over 100 matches played.

One of the limitations for this march towards Legend status was aging but that was removed (not going into that here but that needs to come back also). So as result of that the march towards Legend is an even higher driving force and doing everything possible to protect those pixels is paramount.

So what are the main concerns long term of too many coaches (not all but too many):

1) Losing players permanently
2) Having players permanently injured

Do I like either? Nope, but this has to be played with a ‘these pixels are born dead’ and ‘we who are about to die salute’ mindset (and yes, I struggle with this myself but I’m turning the corner in my ‘12-steps towards happier Bloodbowl’ program)

While there have been many changes to the rules over the last 25+ years, one area that hasn't seen much change is the injury table. So my proposal would be to modify the injury table for leagues that do allow perpetual play as follows:


D6D8 Result Effect
11-18 Dinged Out for the half – 1 to all skill rolls on return
21-38 Badly Bruised out for the match
41-47 Hurt MNG
48-53 Injured Miss next 2 games
54-55 Badly hurt Miss next 3 games
56 Seriously hurt Miss next 4 games
57-58 Lasting Injury Niggle
61-62 Lasting Injury -1 MA
63-64 Lasting Injury -1 AV
65 Lasting Injury -1 AG
66 Lasting Injury -1 ST
67-68 Dead

This increases the chance the player will be out for only half the match, increases the chances the player will be out for more games but greatly reduces the chances of a stat hit or a death.
This would be only for areas of play that have a perpetual nature on FUMBBL, this would not be in effect for non-FUMBBL play or play on FUMBBL with a limited play duration or maximum matches of less than around 10.
I welcome discussion of this, I may not have the correct solution here but this aspect of BB needs to be changed to reflect how the game is being consumed now instead of how it was 20 years ago.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 16:34 Reply with quote Back to top

We already have a CPOMB thread Twisted Evil

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
uzkulak



Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 16:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I think this is a good idea, but it cant really function in isolation. If you introduce mng for extended periods you have to also, IMO, allow for larger squads from which you can select your matchday team. Having a star wardancer mng for 4 matches would destroy a team's chances if they could not bring a replacement in. Many coaches would be better off retiring a multi-mng player in a competitive league/tourney.

If I was designing this game from scratch this idea is certainly something I would bring in (and probably extend on actually). But Im not sure if it fits with the concept of easily grasped rules and quick to set-up matches, which has been a major influence in the way the bloodbowl has evolved ever since lrb3.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 16:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I sort of see your point, but the real issue with missing multiple games is that for some teams they cannot deal with this in any kind of reasonable way because they lack a bench. So they don't fire a healthy mng, but they have to play up to 4 games with a loner at the position.

Then it starts to stack with more multiple mngs and then you have a different kind of death spiral potentially. This might be workable in R (or to an extent B) but I think it would be a disaster for L, and would have drastic impacts for tournament play.
Zlefin



Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 17:05 Reply with quote Back to top

The issues description is sound; but I don't think this is the best fix.
I agree with the others that long term MNGs are a real problem. Also, it still favors avoiding dangerous teams, as however unlikely, there's still much more risk of losing players against them.

I fear it may be necessary to try pansybowl solution - all injuries are badly hurt.
This would necessitate some other changes to the game of course (lowering income by quite a bit).
fidius



Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 17:07 Reply with quote Back to top

I always figured a natural solution to pixel death would be to make a roll on the Cas table the result of a natural 10-12 only, whereas modified 10+ rolls are automatically BH.

One aspect I haven't quite figured out is how to encourage larger benches in a TV-based game. Does anyone have ideas? Eg. Only the top 11 SPP players count toward TV? Or players at 12-16 are half-price, or count for base value only, or skill value only...?
Antithesisoftime



Joined: Aug 20, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 17:45 Reply with quote Back to top

fidius wrote:
I always figured a natural solution to pixel death would be to make a roll on the Cas table the result of a natural 10-12 only, whereas modified 10+ rolls are automatically BH.
That's actually how my TT league always ran things, and casualties in games were up, but player attrition was down.
Nightbird



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 18:08 Reply with quote Back to top

Oh good lord. Another tread of the same vein... Sad
News flash: The rules, as flawed as they are, are here to stay folks.
I'm afraid you'll have to deal w/ them as they stand.

_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
Timetis



Joined: Mar 31, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 18:19 Reply with quote Back to top

So rips go from a 16,67 percent chance on CAS to a mere 4,17 percent on CAS. 0,174 percent for a rip apo rip result. As much as players might dislike injuries and what not, immortal players also dont sound like a lot of fun. Who are missnextgame alot.

Assuming you will have an apo to spare, since just a little over 1 in 6 cas receive a perm which you d want to use apo on. Maybe the miss two or three games result would warrant apo use too.

In short, with the apo as is, with this system, players hardly get hurt/die, removing a part of bb I love: coaching a gritty team of roughnecks with the scars to show for it.
fidius



Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 18:53 Reply with quote Back to top

Nightbird wrote:
News flash: The rules, as flawed as they are, are here to stay folks.
I'm afraid you'll have to deal w/ them as they stand.


Yes of course. But people houserule. And it's still fun to throw ideas around.

I like ageing in concept but not in practice. One solution might be for ageing to grant only Niggling Injuries (at worst), and change the Niggling mechanism such that they don't make casualties more common (no +1 to Injury Roll), but when they are acquired they result in perms more frequently. So for example each Niggle = +1 on the Casualty d6, but Death still requires a natural 6. So the 5 (stat loss) goes from 1/6 to 2/6 to 3/6 as Niggles are acquired. This would mean players are still playable with Niggles, but deteriorate quickly when they do go down, although potentially in ways you don't mind so much (ie MV or AG for LOS players, AV or ST for Throwers, etc.). So you maintain the grittiness aspect, which I agree is a feature of the game and builds team character.

The actual ageing process would have to be different from how it was implemented previously as well (ie not triggered by SPP advancement).
Timetis



Joined: Mar 31, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 18:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I like your addendum, fidius!
sarduk



Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 19:01 Reply with quote Back to top

I think there is too little money in the matches, there should be more cash available. Dead or permed players aren't so bad but it's bad when you can't afford to replace them afterwards.

Also makes running bench harder when you're so limited in money, problem particularly for the softer teams, the heavies seem to be rolling in cash pretty soon.
uzkulak



Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 19:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Its more that they can easily stockpile it at low tv and that they often stay at lower tv for longer.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 20:24 Reply with quote Back to top

LRB4 ageing was too random, you could age when rolling the first skill, that was really flawed.
An ageing based on number of games played (or SPPs) could work, I think.
The question is: how many games (or SPPs) before ageing starts to kick in?
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2015 - 20:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Ageing can not be a good mechanic, sorry.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic