| Poll |
| How do you like your BloodBowl? |
| Just the way it is. I LOVE IT, leave it alone. |
|
18% |
[ 30 ] |
| I love it but it could use some minor tweaking. |
|
60% |
[ 97 ] |
| I like it but it needs some major changes. |
|
13% |
[ 22 ] |
| Needs a complete overhaul. Scrap the current ruleset and rewrite it. |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't care as long as I can kill your pixels and shirtcopter as you ragequit. |
|
6% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 160 |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
 Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 04:46 |
 
|
Most of us are aware that a new ruleset will probably be coming out next year for BB. Whether it is a rewrite, complete new batch of rules or tweaking the current rules is still unbeknownst to all of us.
With all the talk about the game in the forums and in-game most people seem to feel the game needs some tweaking for perpetual leagues.
A few of the problems I hear.(Some I agree wholeheartedly with, others not so much.)
*Spiraling expenses
*Too many legends/too easy to create legends
*Clawpomb
*Piling on too effective/no negatives to it
*Fouling was nerfed too hard
*Too many useless skills for TV
*Too many skills period
*Mutations too easy to access for some teams
*Tackle/Dodge/Stunty issues
*Kick-off results that can change the entire game
*Elves being overpowered
*Regeneration being Uber-powerful
*Skills being over-used/linear team builds
*Treasuries are a nightmare. Some teams have endless wealth, others are lucky to have a nickel.
*TV only counting towards your best 11 to encourage benches
*Secret Weapons being auto-ban
*Wizard being too powerful and cheap
*Stat increases being avoided for fear of TV bloat.
So I ask the fumbbl community what you think about the game we all love. Are the rules perfect the way they are? Does it need some tweaking? And what are your comments?
I would like to think maybe everyone that loves the game so much and has so much insight could somehow help influence those re-releasing the game. THe community here has so much knowledge of the game from years of cold hard statistics and real proof of how the game works. I think those rewriting the rules would be silly not to listen to such knowledgeable individuals.
My thoughts are that the game is really good at low TV up to about 140 TV and then it gets a little wild. The TV process does not work to a lot of degrees when we have a skill like block that is so powerful and sought after but then we have skills like diving catch, shadowing and others that will set you back the same TV but really do not have the same usefulness. I don't really think all skills should cost the same TV, maybe tier them in the 5,10 or 15 TV mark instead of only 20TV. The fact we even have to debate taking a +ag on a lineman is terrible and just shows some of the ineffectiveness of the system. I would like to see it adjusted to allow fluff builds to be more competitive.
The killstack has been beaten to death and everyone's disapproval. I dislike it because when it works it essentially ends the game before it has started. But this is not the place to discuss it since we have a topic for that!
I think the game works well at low TV with the exception of a few teams that could use some tweaks. Something needs to give with Zons and Ogres. Zons are too powerful until they find Dwarves. Ogres.....really? Make them fun and not just SPP punching bags. I don't think some of these teams a good design. That and it would be nice if Halflings and Goblins could play against Dwarves competitively.
My biggest problem with the game is really some of the kick off results. My god, blitz is too powerful. A kick off result should not determine the outcome of a game. And it comes up all too often whereas other good results do not. My campaign for 2016: Nerfblitz2016! 
So what are your thoughts? |
_________________
 |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 05:42 |
|
Game needs the bank limit rule, basically. Nerfs all the big old high-AV and regen teams that it's supposed to nerf, because they collapse a bit faster, and then everyone's having a similar game experience: build, get killed, rebuild (or start over). Also gets more inducements in play.
Sneaky Git -> KO Box is brilliant fun, but in addition to working as it does now.
Right Stuff -> Cancels tackle on blocks. Those teams all need that, even Orcs.
Most of the rest of it there's tools in the game now to cope. Wrestle-Tackle is brilliant, reasonably complete players should take Fend, you need a Jugg-Frenzy on your team, you need a big Grab guy to help your 1-TTDs when short of players, you need a Strip Ball to force them to carry with their pickup. If you don't have an AG 4 on Chaos take Extra Arms, etc.
Kickoff results are fine, they make you setup back from the line a bit when kicking and cover the wings and mark the LoS when recieving, which is what they're supposed to do. Yeh, sometimes you've only got 6 players on the pitch and get Blitz!ed, tough luck. |
_________________
  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 05:59 |
|
I feel like the game is 90% there and a lot of the 'issues' are solely related to the format of Fumbbl being capable of hosting teams that play tons of games. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 06:15 |
|
bring back aging #tooeasytogetlegends |
_________________
 |
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
Mandatory 16 man teams with the abilty to get journeymen to make up the deficiet fits the fluff also. Would make it far less likely that a team would not have numbers at least for 2nd half. They may just not be the best players.
Would also mean always having los fodder. |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 07:32 |
|
I disagree with the bank rule. After tons of playtesting I can pretty confidently say that although it may look bad on paper, money is a complete non issue. It could become one if introduced. Don't fix what's not broken. If there was a bank rule it should be set really really high, at the very least no less than 500k g.
I agree with what tussok said about right stuff. SG certainly could be upped somehow. Not sure about the KO thing.
CPOMB is the priority issue. The rest of the ruleset can be basically not properly assessed because it draws too much from all the alternative combos.
The precise details on how to change it is really the key question. It would be bad if it was overfixed and bash suddenly turned out to be irrelevant. Small changes please.
Foulers should add +1 to armor. Mind you this doesn't necessarily work in conjunction with altered SG. Really have to pay a little attention to how multiple rule changes would affect each other too. This has been neglected in LRB5 and CRP which caused all the trouble.
Blitz! events, the Block skill and all that stuff are unbalancing factors that are so old I'm not sure they really make sense to be fixed unless you want to go for a complete overhaul.
A small overhaul really should be rather cpomb only and see how it goes from there.
TV instead of TR was probably one of the biggest improvements in the history of BB. There are mathematical limits to simply calculating cost for a boardgame miniatur. I don't think that can be overcome by altering the formular.
Basically low av players will always be overpriced faster than high av players as they gain skills. Cost probably should be approximated based on a average cost. I wouldn't principially mind some small skill rebate for stunties tho.
My personal preference would be to make stats a little cheaper. At the right moment they may be still 'ok' to take but they probably should have more a feel of 'awsome' to them. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 10:37 |
|
Cpomb tweak (slight), slight buff to fouling, and differentiated pricing for skills and stats (possibly lowering the cost of some stat) would go a long way.
I think the skills could be better, and maybe simpler in some instances like juggernaut working on all block, and all it would be doing is swapping both down to push, and sneaky git could be improved with a much shorter (but different) sentence, tentacles/shadowing could be changed (it takes ages to resolve in tabletop, but not an issue online), but those are just very minor things considering the big picture. |
_________________
 |
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 12:00 |
|
We just need to go back to 3rd edition. And to being 14 years old. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 12:08 |
|
Here's my tuppence (actually more than tuppence I unfortunately for all have some time on my hands today).
| NerdBird wrote: | | ......and in-game most people seem to feel the game needs some tweaking for perpetual leagues. |
Actually I think the game plays pretty well in game. Not everything is fair, but it's not meant to be. For me most of the problems lie in the out of game stuff.
| mrt1212 wrote: | | I feel like the game is 90% there and a lot of the 'issues' are solely related to the format of Fumbbl being capable of hosting teams that play tons of games. |
I definitely agree with this, I think we all probably can agree with this.
I'd also say (hitting the OPs point above too) that there are problems with perpetual leagues using the current ruleset. I'd go further and say the problem is that we have a lot of formats that differ greatly, suffering because they're tied to each other using one format that's ok for all, but not excellent for any.
These being Resurrection, long term Leagues, Perpetual (and maybe short form leagues/cups too). In game, they should play the same. So how we play the game shouldn't be different. However out of game it's a bit silly that 3 very different formats are trying to cope with one ruleset.
In my opinion we should have out of game rules tailor made for each format. It wouldn't be that difficult to manage as the game would essentially play the same still.
| tussock wrote: | | Game needs the bank limit rule, basically. |
Initially I hated the idea of the bank rule. However as the game is, I believe it's needed. Like aging it's a pretty negative rule and if there was a more positive way (or removing the problem altogether) it'd be better than using the bank or aging rules.
| Wreckage wrote: | | I disagree with the bank rule. After tons of playtesting I can pretty confidently say that although it may look bad on paper, money is a complete non issue. It could become one if introduced. Don't fix what's not broken. If there was a bank rule it should be set really really high, at the very least no less than 500k g. |
Well with 500k GP it's kind of pointless having a bank rule at all. You're also not looking at other reasons why a bank would be useful. For me, using JM with a large bank isn't how the game should be played. It's aesthetically terrible and off putting to fluff players (which new players tend to be).
Again I think it's a band aid fix and a negative one. So I'd rather look at a more appealing and popular way of combatting the problem (I consider it a problem, of course you do not).
| pythrr wrote: | | bring back aging #tooeasytogetlegends |
Like above I thought it was great once aging was removed. It's a really negative rule. However the endless 'finally got my first legend' blogs has lead me many a time to setting up my own little hangman's noose only to dismantle it again and lying to myself that 'there won't be another 'finally a legend after 21 game blog tomorrow'!
Of course what aging did (which was genius and maybe only pythrr saw it) was to spread spp around and give healthy teams of stars, middle markers and rookies. However the rule is pretty negative, we could have it back a bit differently. So it's more of a scalpel rather than the bludger it used to be.
Unlike Bank however, alternatives aren't easy to come up with. So......as the game is, we should have a tamed down form of aging in my opinion.
| jarvis_pants wrote: | Mandatory 16 man teams with the abilty to get journeymen to make up the deficiet fits the fluff also. Would make it far less likely that a team would not have numbers at least for 2nd half. They may just not be the best players.
Would also mean always having los fodder. |
I already play with this rule and I like it for me. Fluffwise I agree it works well. Unfortunately though it favours Elves far too much for a global perpetual environment. A shame but it definitely wouldn't work.
| ManontheStree wrote: | | Cpomb |
Obviously we do have a problem here. However it is a useful tool. Also Chaos should have a removal tool. They are meant to be the most violent players. So instead of fixing it, I'd rather limit it, but keep the power.
I have suggested 2 ways of doing this, and I like them both. They work fluff and rulewise.
1: Only ST5 guys (others have suggested big guys either work) can PO. You need great weight (or strength) to pile on to another player.
2: You can only PO on the second hit of a frenzy. You need momentum to pile on to another player.
In fact why not have both! Only ST5 guys or Frenzy guys can Pile On. The Frenzy one is a beauty as it also adds a tacticle element (something POMBing sadly needs!)
Ok NBs points
*Spiraling expenses – Yeah I'm not sure they're needed. Certainly they should go up. Certainly they weren't tested a fair degree. Either raise it and see what happens or go back to the old LRB4 formula. Bar having to start with high FF I can't see much wrong with the old LRB4 money/winnings mechanics.
*Too many legends/too easy to create legends – True, but it's not a massive issue......is it?
*Fouling was nerfed too hard – Yes. Bring back the Eye and a slight buff in fouling.
*Too many useless skills for TV – TV=problem.
*Too many skills period – Disagree. Maybe some weaker ones could be combined or buffed or cheapened. I'd really like us to work in 5Ks, but JJ despises odd numbers.
*Mutations too easy to access for some teams – True. However some mutations aren't strong. Mutations scream out for a 2 teir/trait system. Also if they were doubles for most teams, it allows for a weaker chaos roster to get them on normals (like Underworld).
*Tackle/Dodge/Stunty issues – BB is designed to be tough on Stunties. That's how it's meant to be.
*Kick-off results that can change the entire game – Again, it's not meant to be fair. It's meant to be lively!!! That's how it is.
*Elves being overpowered - Elves are superior beings. You have to work hard with them though. I think they're fine.
*Regeneration being Uber-powerful – Change the apo back to the old apo. The new one is complex and uninspiring. Also it gives regen too much of an advantage.
*Skills being over-used/linear team builds – Hmmmmmm hard to put a nail on that one, and complex to fix.
*Treasuries are a nightmare. Some teams have endless wealth, others are lucky to have a nickel. - Again hard to fix. Some teams should have money problems though. Elves should be hard work and always short on cash. They're talented expensive guys!!
*TV only counting towards your best 11 to encourage benches – Again TV. Band aid fixes, when TV is the problem. Fix TV match making and handicapping and you fix problems like this.
*Secret Weapons being auto-ban – We nailed it in Stunty in my opinion. GW can always use that for reference.
*Wizard being too powerful and cheap – Maybe, also a bit 1 dimensional now. Probably make the spells a bit more equal and you have to choose 1 spell before the game.
*Stat increases being avoided for fear of TV bloat. - Again TV TV TV. Fix bloody TV AARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHH |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 12:42 |
|
There's a much simpler fix to aging and CPOMB. Remove the intermediate step of a cas roll after an injury roll. 3rd edition's rule was much simpler, and that change was easily the worst change ever made to the game, for me. If I break armour, and then I roll a 12, your player is dead.
It addresses everything that the much hated SE, aging and CPOMB rules were introduced to address, but instead of adding lengthy, unwieldy, unpopular rules, it removes them, which is much more elegant & simple. It's the obvious choice. |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 13:09 |
|
Meh, guess I'll throw out my old hairbrained ideas in this thread:
Ageing: See going waaay back, my issue with aging wasn't its existence, but the fact it was something that you rolled for with regularity. I'd bring it back, but only for the last 3 skill-rolls and then... at legend your roll includes potentially straight up retirement. Yeah.
Treasury/inducements/JM: I'm grouping these all together, because I'm going to say something potentially controversial and probably something everyone will be against. But I'll say it anyway, even as someone who induces Boomer frequently because he's cheaper than cheap.
I don't think you should be able to spend your treasury on inducements in non-league play, I think they should come directly from a TR/TV deficit calculation - there is nothing I dislike more than "both teams have a wizard", or seeing one coach purchase inducements because they know the race they are facing cannot possibly get the same value from the extra added inducements they will get.
In as such, treasury therefore becomes a completely one-directional application - you replace players with it. This would, with other changes, lead to a push towards running more players, since well, there's no shortage of money for replacements.
A lot of the current rules of bloodbowl make perfect sense in an environment where everyone is "eventually" playing against the same teams. The issue is that they do not make sense when your next opponent could be dwarves who have played nothing but zero-troll goblins, Elves who've never faced tackle or Nurgle who've decided that even the ballcarrier will pile on. Obviously I am being completely hyperbolic here. But the real problem with Bloodbowl (on fumbbl, on cyanide) is that people play it. And I don't mean they play the game, I mean they game the game. Usually zero-sum games have some sort of benefit to the winner, we're not playing for money, so I cannot see what it is. |
_________________
 |
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 16:23 |
|
I still haven't got a legend 
Allthough I can see the point of too many legends, I hated the aging rule as it was too random.
I had a league team where the two first player that skilled also aged (-st and niggling), This gutted the team. Ofc had it been in a perpetual division like Ranked or Black Box I could try to rebuild or just start over, but since it was league play, I prefered that things got decided on the pitch rather than after the match.
I remember that in LRB4 it wasn't only the aging that kept people from amassing legends. Skill points was calculated into team rating, which meant you would try to avoid too many spp hogs. Wasn't Mr. T worth the same value as an experienced team? |
_________________
 |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 17:16 |
|
Going to Scatter shoot some thoughts.
Apoth: The CRP apoth is the new ageing. You can apoth a Badly Hurt and it works 100% of the time BUT SI and Death, well, now you have a chance that you will still take a perm injury.
So ageing rolls compared to the Apoth. Apoth > ageing.
I still think GOLD in CRP is total rubbish on how the inducement system works. You can have 10 million in gold laying around and nothing to spend it on except for players. Coaches rarely if ever transfer gold when they are the underdog and when they are the favorite they never transfer Gold because it is a 1 for 1 exchange. The transfer to inducement phase needs a complete overhaul. Make gold valuable again.
TV and skill cost is great if you are going to a TT tournament because all the teams buy skills off the same sheet at the same cost and it makes it nice and even in terms of TV. TV on FUMBBL in R/B and open league league play is the root cause of most of the issues IMO.
So here is my offer of a solution.
TV is calculated just like TR was. 1TV for every 5 SPP. No cost for skills/+Stats just based on the total # of SPP on a roster.
Gold is now added to TV at a rate of 1TV for every 20K in gold.
OR
You introduce the "Bank" rules. You can have, lets say, up to 200K In Gold for free at all times. For every 10K in gold over 200K it costs 1TV or 1 TV for every 20K over. You get the idea.
Apoth/Cheerleader and Coaches TV remains the same.
Once the comparison of TV is calculated to determine Inducement money. The Favorite can transfer Gold to spend how he wants: THE UNDERDOG does not get matching funds. The Underdog can then transfer Gold on top of his free Gold and the Favorite does not get matching funds.
You allow that coupled with Gold now costing TV...well coaches will not be inclined to horde cash an actually use it on something beside player replacement. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 17:29 |
|
My last thought before I run off.
Spiraling Expenses is very obviously a rule that some dude came up with while sitting on the toilet trying to come up with some rules for NON TT tournaments, like FUMBBL. It was a hair brain idea brought on by constipation. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 17:34 |
|
I appreciate reading the feedback, especially from Wreckage and HM as they have vast knowledge of the game. Painstate brings up good points about being able to use your money but could you imagine in a tournament where the teams are equal TV and the one team has 1 million in gold and the other nothing. SO the team with lots of money throws in enough to get a wizard, 2 babes, an extra apo, a star and some cards?
I am really interested to hear from someone that thinks the game is fine the way it is and leave it alone. What is your argument to leave it alone? Fear it could be worse? You truly believe it is right where it should be? Just curious. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
