koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:27 |
 
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:32 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | Ooh look, another 'I play Blood Bowl but can't handle the blood' thread  |
As if you have never quit when you didn't like it up you.  |
Granted, everyone melts sometime, myself included, but I'm not looking to actively change the rules to suit my playstyle, which is essentially what threads like this boil down to..... |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:34 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
what I was getting at was that if you are using TS to measure the strength of a team then you should also be using it to decide inducements. That's a rule change that would upset the 'Officialists'. |
That would be the most efficient solution. However, it is not absolutely necessary. |
|
|
Wizfall
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:36 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | | Granted, everyone melts sometime, myself included, but I'm not looking to actively change the rules to suit my playstyle, which is essentially what threads like this boil down to..... |
No rules changed intended, just the scheduler. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 14:07 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | | Ooh look, another 'I play Blood Bowl but can't handle the blood' thread |
As if you have never quit when you didn't like it up you. |
Granted, everyone melts sometime, myself included, but I'm not looking to actively change the rules to suit my playstyle, which is essentially what threads like this boil down to..... |
Some more than others. 
Well, the rules already suit your play style. Apart from the fouling maybe. So why would you want to change.
Brasky still plays O[L]C. It's not completely wuss ball.
But hey, if this is what people want you're welcome to it. Maybe I'll give it another try the next time my claws need sharpening. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 14:22 |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 14:59 |
|
Pretty much anything would be better than TV, right now. A re-invented TS would unless badly handled (which I very much doubt) be an improvement.
The only thing about TS in the past was that it was married with TR, which meant the only real effect it had was pier pressure. If you go with TS, go with TS 100% |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 15:27 |
|
So what about a TS to pair the teams in the Box scheduler and TV used to calculate the inducements? |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 15:40 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | So what about a TS to pair the teams in the Box scheduler and TV used to calculate the inducements? |
That would be pretty much what I suggested too.
No rules changes, just a change in the scheduler system. The same way TS was used back in the day. No relevance for Ranked. |
|
|
Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 15:58 |
|
Coach ranking, in my mind, is nearly meaningless, because it is builded on two division that use blood bowl in a way the rules are not builded to work
Rules are written for tournaments or perpetual scheduled leagues. In perpetual scheduled leagues, your next opponent won't depend on your actual CR or your team TV. In a perpetual league, if you fire an healty developed positional to reroll it, you simply weaken your team and will have less chance to win next match, while in the divisions you'll optimize your TV meet a weaker opponent
In the leagues you use your apo to save your star, because if you lose it, you'll be crippled for a long time, while in the box you usually use the apo to keep a BH good player in the game, because if you lose your star, you're going to face weaker opponents until you'll rebuild another star.
Thus, CR, it's hard dependent on the ability of users to manipulate the team to exploit the system that is not created for the division and the way we use it
Win % is a bit more accurate, but even this factor is influenced by what I wrote before
I'm not saying, obviously, that if you win in [B] you're not a good coach. You're a good coach, within the "alterated" rules the divisions work with. You are a good [B] or [R] coach
I think that the most "significative" value to judge a "blood bowl as intended" coach, is perpetual schedule [L] or NAF tournaments. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 16:25 |
|
Tournaments are not BB as intended, league is BB as intended, because teams have different TV optimal spots and perpetual play makes up for lack of core skills of many teams. Tournament TV 1000 Chaos sucks, TV 1000 Wood Elves are awesome.
If the rosters were balanced at TV 1000 then tournaments would be balanced and competitive (maybe without some Kick Off table events and weather rolls). |
|
|
Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 16:32 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Tournaments are not BB as intended, league is BB as intended, because teams have different TV optimal spots and perpetual play makes up for lack of core skills of many teams. Tournament TV 1000 Chaos sucks, TV 1000 Wood Elves are awesome.
If the rosters were balanced at TV 1000 then tournaments would be balanced and competitive (maybe without some Kick Off table events and weather rolls). |
The CRP rules were created with perpetual leagues AND NAF tournament in mind. This was clearly said by the rulers during the developement
I'm not saying they did a perfect job or the like
I'm simply saying that the rules are surely not intended for [b] or [r] and thus they're even less balanced in this divisions than they already are |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 16:32 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | | Ooh look, another 'I play Blood Bowl but can't handle the blood' thread |
As if you have never quit when you didn't like it up you. |
Granted, everyone melts sometime, myself included, but I'm not looking to actively change the rules to suit my playstyle, which is essentially what threads like this boil down to..... |
Some more than others.
Well, the rules already suit your play style. Apart from the fouling maybe. So why would you want to change.
Brasky still plays O[L]C. It's not completely wuss ball.
But hey, if this is what people want you're welcome to it. Maybe I'll give it another try the next time my claws need sharpening. |
Personally Ive always played BB for the blood, but I preferred LRB4 over CRP...That being said the same coaches that are whining about clawPOMB in CRP were whining about mass DP in LRB4, and as long as blood bowl contains blood they will continue to try to change the rules to suit themselves. |
_________________
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 16:36 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | So why would you want to change. |
Just to be clear Koadah, I have never said I want to change the rules....and I don't create countless stealth anti-clawPOMB threads to try to affect change either |
_________________
|
|
Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 16:44 |
|
I don't want to change the rules
But I'm sure that with some minor changes, things will be more banlanced. Some rules to "force" the team to be more like the should be in a league. In a league you'll never fire a two skilled positional to reroll it, NEVER EVER... to make only one of the tons of examples available |
|
|
|
|
| |
Having issues launch...
Search
