| 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 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:27 |
 
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | I dont get the need for aging to be honest. Legends require you sacrifice a huge amount of time, distributing SPPs unevenly subverting skill advancement on teammates and the reward for that is right in line with that commitment. |
no it doesn't. it just involved getting a clawpomb and playing 30 games |
How is this a "too many legends too easily" problem? It's a cpomb problem through and through. I guess you grognards don't want to see a legend pogoer or goblin troll. |
How much often do we see legend pogoers and trolls?
How much often do we see legend clawpombers instead?
While a legend pogoer is not so problematic, hard to achieve and he's easy to kill or injure, a legend clawpomber is problematic, relatively easy to have and quite game breaking, especially if you have more than one legend clawpomber on your team.
Mind, even a non-clawpomb legend like one turners and stat freaks are troublesome, but generally speaking you are going to see legend clawpombers most often. |
But you're prescribing a remedy that will punish the fringe cases more harshly than the vast majority of cases to the point only the vast majority of cases will exist. Like using a sledgehammer to kill ants then complaining that the only thing remaining in the house is ants. |
Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %08, %2016 - %21:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:29 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: |
It absolutely is. That's because the game is from the 80ies and in the 80ies game designers didn't understand yet the importance of balance.
Since games have developed and are on a qualitatively higher level. There is no point in staying behind out of some misunderstood nostalgia for poor game dynamics.
|
On the other hand people seeking balance above all else as if that's the holy grail of gaming are insufferable. Fighting games and MOBAs attract the worst kind of gamers. |
MOBAs are not balanced, they are regularly patched to fix the most blatant issues and to refresh the meta from time to time, but they are not, and they can't be, balanced.
The positive side of this is if you like to play a hero in a moba and he sucks you can hope that in the next months he will be buffed.
The problem with BB is that its ruleset is too static and stagnating.
| mrt1212 wrote: |
But you're prescribing a remedy that will punish the fringe cases more harshly than the vast majority of cases to the point only the vast majority of cases will exist. Like using a sledgehammer to kill ants then complaining that the only thing remaining in the house is ants. |
Nah, for the greater good of the game you have to keep in check the most common issues, Goblin coaches can keep playing Goblins even with harder to achieve legends.
BB goal is not farming your players to Legend rank. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:40 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: |
It absolutely is. That's because the game is from the 80ies and in the 80ies game designers didn't understand yet the importance of balance.
Since games have developed and are on a qualitatively higher level. There is no point in staying behind out of some misunderstood nostalgia for poor game dynamics.
|
On the other hand people seeking balance above all else as if that's the holy grail of gaming are insufferable. Fighting games and MOBAs attract the worst kind of gamers. |
MOBAs are not balanced, they are regularly patched to fix the most blatant issues and to refresh the meta from time to time, but they are not, and they can't be, balanced.
The positive side of this is if you like to play a hero in a moba and he sucks you can hope that in the next months he will be buffed.
The problem with BB is that its ruleset is too static and stagnating. |
One man's buff is another man's balance is another man's nerf. I really do not enjoy ceaseless conversation about how someone's personal favorite hero is suffering unduly and how it needs to be remedied NOW! It's as tedious if not more so than people complaining about how the rules never change. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:42 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
Nah, for the greater good of the game you have to keep in check the most common issues, Goblin coaches can keep playing Goblins even with harder to achieve legends.
BB goal is not farming your players to Legend rank. |
We get it Dakka, you want this game to be as dry as Chess and as tactical as Go |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:47 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
One man's buff is another man's balance is another man's nerf. I really do not enjoy ceaseless conversation about how someone's personal favorite hero is suffering unduly and how it needs to be remedied NOW! It's as tedious if not more so than people complaining about how the rules never change. |
In the case of MOBAs, win rate data collected from thousands of games is used to see whether a hero has a win rate too high, not personal opinions.
In 2016 the same approach could be used to make a BB ruleset, if a kill stack on average removes too many players it must be nerfed, it's quite simple.
Stopped playing Chess years ago because I didn't like the deterministic side of the game and the lack of "fresh" moves.
Many games were always the same patterns of moves without the unpredictability of dice to spice up the things. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %08, %2016 - %21:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:48 |
|
Wow this has really kicked off......there are so many tennis balls flying around I don't know where to duck!
| Wreckage wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | 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). |
The thing I really like about the mechanics is that they work. And not just work, they work really well. The problem is that 'the problem' just straight out isn't a problem at all.
Coaches shouldn't be punished for managing their treasury. It's in fact very stabilizing for the game that there is a way to aquire long term ressources to get replacements.
Removing this possibility would only accomplish to make playing the game a less pleasant experience and much more random due to the increased severity of cas.
Will a team with 0g be a massive underdog against a team with a million?
Not even close.
If you induce the count, the other team gets half a million for free. And so on. Your only advantage of doing that is that you get to decide on the timing. You do not gain an actual headstart. But that is actually fair because... well... one team saved up half a million, the other team didn't and then the money is gone.
It's not going to break the game, it's not going to do anything. It is as i said a completely made up issue from people who just can't accept that it simply doesn't matter. |
Yeah, I just totally disagree. You're looking at it from a totally different view point to me. You are looking at it as a mechanical beast. If that's the case lets do away with races the fluff and the character.
However all those things are vital for bloodbowl. Fundamentally we are on polar opposites on this issue.
quote="PainState"]
YOU NO LONGER GET SPP FOR INFLICTING A CAS
Instead we bring back a old BB 2ed mechanic. Every player who plays in a match, at the end of the match they get 1 SPP.[/quote]
This is extremely interesting. If you had a team of 16 and 16spp for just competing that's far too much. However something along this line would definitely be an advantage.
Maybe scores 2 spp, cas 1spp, int 1spp and 1spp for playing 8 or more turns?
A bit complex but a move in the right direction. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 21:48 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: |
Ranked is very similar to the way the rulebook suggests leagues should be run as some sort of open playground where everybody plays everybody and in the end people have to show from a list that they racked up 5 wins against somebody and then are able to participate in a knockout final.
It absolutely is. That's because the game is from the 80ies and in the 80ies game designers didn't understand yet the importance of balance.
Since games have developed and are on a qualitatively higher level. There is no point in staying behind out of some misunderstood nostalgia for poor game dynamics.
The game already has been optimized for places like fumbbl. It just didn't work perfectly well the very first time they tried. Which isn't that terribly suprising. How often do you get it completely right the first time?
Overall CRP is such a massive improvement over LRB4. They did a really good job. |
Because in those situations on the TT you regularly get teams that have played 100 games? Yeah right. That's ranked. It's deigned for a much smaller number of games before a final. Not 100 plus games and then one enters a cup and then after the cup plays another 100 games.
From what I can gather I think they did it because in the 80s there was the beginnings of the drive by other gaming rule sets to make everything balanced and competitive. They understood of course they did and the tried to make a game that was both playable and competitive yet unbalanced. Which only makes it more ironic I think that there is a constant crusade to make it ever more balanced. I think to argue for total balance one has completely missed the point of the game. Those original rules have never been fundamentally changed. Yes there have been tweaks to change things up but never an attempt to even things out. And unlike Fantasy and 40K which moved from being unbalanced and designed for role play to balanced and competitive (until AoS). Blood Bowl has however kept it's original unbalanced state because it was supposed to be a parody of that whole movement. A competitive game that's not fully balanced, yet balanced enough to allow a great deal of fun where winning is not necessarily everything but doing crazy things with crazy menz in a parody of American Football. That's how it feels to me. That is to me a big of an issue with CRP, I feel the drive is to go further from what it originally was. It's becoming the very thing it was having a laugh about. |
|
|
MisterFurious
Joined: Aug 11, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 22:17 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
Here is a hair brain idea.
YOU NO LONGER GET SPP FOR INFLICTING A CAS
|
I've often wondered if this game would be far more enjoyable if players didn't skill up at all. What got me interested in this game to begin with was a comparison to Mutant League Football, which was a game I loved to play when I was young. In that game, I didn't care if my players got killed because it didn't matter. They were just fodder. Your players died, you replaced them. If they got blown up by a bomb or knocked off the field into outer space, I laughed about it. In Blood Bowl, though, you lose a guy with four or five skills and it can be gut-wrenching. That's a lot of time spent developing a player gone right out the window and sometimes it can be something as stupid as a failed dodge or a thrown rock that does it, too. The other day, I saw a Legend with over 250 SPPs get killed by a thrown rock. The coach of that team took it really well, but I would've thrown my chair out the window. On the other hand, I think it's funny when a Rookie gets killed by a rock. I've also found that teams can really start to depend on a stat freak or a highly skilled guy and if they get killed, then it really ruins your team.
Blood Bowl is kind of a schizophrenic game that does two things (bloody, random, violent chaos and a tactical game with player and team progression) and those two sides are really at odds with each other. A lot of people get into this game because they want to build up a team and gain SPPs and get skills and make legends, but I think those are the players that get pissed off with the game and end up quitting. That aspect of the game was really appealing to me early on but I realized that, after a while, it became the greatest source of frustration to me.
I've heard that older versions of the game were far more violent and had less of the player progression. Maybe that would really be better. Focus the rules more on the violence. Or, you could split the difference and cap skills at three instead of six so it doesn't take nearly as long to peak, or maybe when you buy a player for your team, you get to pick a skill for him from a list or something. I don't know. I could be really wrong, but I think the game would probably be better if it focused on one thing instead of trying to go in two different directions (player progression and mass death). Whole ass one thing instead of half-assing two. I find that I enjoy playing Stunty Leeg more than regular Blood Bowl because there, I don't expect anyone to get more than a skill or two, if that. I expect lots of death and little team development. Still, you occasionally do get a guy skill up and your team starts to depend on him and then, one day, he gets killed by a chainsaw. That's the duality of Blood Bowl, though. A Wood Elf getting killed by a Goblin with a chainsaw is funny. A Flesh Golem that took over 50 games to get four skill ups getting killed by a thrown rock isn't nearly as funny to a lot of people. In fact, it can be very infuriating. I wonder if you get rid of the skill ups, or lessen them or change the way it happens, if the game will skew more towards the funny and less away from the frustrating. For me, at least, this game is far more entertaining to spectate than to play because watching someone else's Legend Wardancer die because of a failed leap is always funnier than seeing your's die that way. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 22:27 |
|
I realise that as we get further into 2015, there are going to be ever more of these. 'Most of us are aware that a new ruleset will probably be coming out next year for BB' indeed. I stopped reading there.
I've given up trying to be sensible, but at the very least, can we at least keep it to the one thread? I'm going to bring this up in the mod forum, some sort of GW boxed set release (wild) speculation megathread would at least keep the place tidy and give us the option of avoidance. One of these every fortnight for a year would be heavy going. |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 22:35 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | 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.
So what are your thoughts? |
Didn't you mean:
"Most of us are aware that a new 'BOXED' set will probably be coming out next year for BB." 
As far as I've read there is NO mention, of any kind, of a new rule-set coming out. Are you confusing their recently announced 'tournament' rule-set as the basis for your speculation of a 'new' rule-set I'm only asking because I'm now wondering if I missed something that came out recently on the subject? As I stated, in another thread, I took the tournament rule-set that was announced as just for that one tournament & not as a replacement OR as the base for a new rule-set. Can anyone shed some light on this w/ solid facts |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 22:35 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Wow this has really kicked off......there are so
Yeah, I just totally disagree. You're looking at it from a totally different view point to me. You are looking at it as a mechanical beast. If that's the case lets do away with races the fluff and the character.
However all those things are vital for bloodbowl. Fundamentally we are on polar opposites on this issue.
|
Nah Mouse.
You are just at the extreme end. The fluff & character has no value unless you make the game enjoyable to play.
Do people just want to sit reading the rule books or do they actually want to play. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 23:03 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | I realise that as we get further into 2015, there are going to be ever more of these. 'Most of us are aware that a new ruleset will probably be coming out next year for BB' indeed. I stopped reading there.
|
I really think we should have 3 or 4 of these over the year since they are not structured enough to keep track of things as they get longer.
I can understand if you think 10-20 would be over the top  . |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 23:17 |
|
Do we really need to keep track of ever more wild, unfounded and crazy speculation? To what end, to have a laugh at how needlessly mental it was when the box arrives? Every thread that kicks off misinforms another casual coach to the point we're no better than TFF.
It's a bit funny now, but a year of it is going to be a grind. Making stuff up is a laugh, I get it, but it's a shame.
Shrug. Plough on!
(2016, of course) |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 23:31 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
Do people just want to sit reading the rule books or do they actually want to play. |
Wait, what?
I thought that is why I bought all those codex and army books. To read the fluff and fun stuff. Since the "rules" section was normally only around 4 pages of the 64 page book.
 |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 08, 2016 - 23:35 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | Do we really need to keep track of ever more wild, unfounded and crazy speculation? |
Well, crap, I have not been keeping track of the wild, unfounded and crazy speculation that happened before this thread.
Was it important? you know, the stuff I missed before?
Or
Was it the same wild, unfounded and crazy speculation "we" have been talking about for the last 6 years on FUMBBL? |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
|
|
| |
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
