Xeterog
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 05:11 |
 
|
posting this before reading any of the thread.
1) Random is the fun and frustrating part of Blood Bowl
2) Inducements are pretty close to perfect right now. Some reward for building a team
3) Part is that Piling On is too powerful. Part is that Claw is not available to everyone. Even part is that Clay makes +AV a virtually useless skill. Fixing Piling on would be the thing I think that the CRP rules need the most.
4) Attrition levels are about right.
5) I like the new way TV is calculated.
6) Since you can technically tweak Spiraling expenses, I think it works well at it's job--as a soft upper limit on a Teams TV.
7) Removing FF from the TV calculations entirely. (still have it, just not change the TV of a team)
 They are priced according to their abilites, plus a little. They are well worth that extra cost (at least most of them)
9) Part of the fun for some is taking a handicapped team and winning with it. All teams do not need to be equal (unless we really to play in a all human league)
10) Maybe. But how..increase everyone's speed by X? make passing/ball handling better? The game is good as it is though, so it may be something that doesn't need fixed.
11) No. Stalling is a Real World Tactic of Real Sports teams (why do you think they have a shot clock in Basketball, Football teams stalling at the end of a game to keep the clock running so the other team doesn't have time to score, etc)
12) No. Ageing sucked so bad. It is terrible to have your guys age . yes, it is more 'realistic', but this is fantasy..and your players die at a much higher rate than in real sports.
13) I like the current balance. Perhaps allow teams to purchase ONE bribe as a roster slot (like an apothecary or cheerleader).
14) Wizards are game changers..but 150 seems about right to me. plus, it's an inducement that is worth it's price most of the time.
15) I don't really think so..but maybe. Some teams seem to have loads of cash--other team generaly can't buy anything ever.
16) The only KO result I dislike is the Throw a Rock--it's HORRIBLE to have a legend killed by a fan like that! Even the Blitz! result isn't always a game changer (depens on when it come up) |
_________________
- Xeterog |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| DrDiscoStu wrote: | | mister__joshua wrote: |
- Some people are FOR ageing, which is nice to see. I like the reasoning for this point of view. Often people against mechanics like ageing see it from a personal 'my team' point of view rather than a wider picture.
|
That sounds a lot like you like aging, and to disagree means we are look at it from a "my team only" perspective.
Aging is close to the worst thing to ever happen in blood bowl. Fundamentally you should not be penalized for making your players better. You should be penalized for: getting blocked; getting fouled; failing dodges; failing GFI, etc.
Aside from ridiculousness of trying to stall your best players progress, it also separates the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" where it becomes hard to counter that +ST +AG blodge positional on your opponents side because your better players have been forced into retirement.
/endrant |
Not really, no. When I played under LRB4 I hated ageing. I find the arguments for it interesting because it is so widely hated.
I'd argue though that most people that hate ageing hate it because of what it does to their team. That's got to be correct, right? The opposite side of the argument is that ageing balances high TV teams better. I've never seen anyone argue that they want ageing removed because of how it affects the meta.
Saying it's from a 'my team' perspective isn't a negative thing, sorry if you took it to be so. Most CPOMb discussions are approached from a 'my team' perspective. It's the natural way to see things as a player. As I'm now trying to look at the ruleset as a whole and the wider picture ageing seems more attractive than it did when I looked at it as a player. It's still harsh, and I'm not saying I'm 'for' it, but I can see it's original purpose better. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 09:59 |
|
All of these responses are prefixed with in my opinion. None of my opinions are fact, though occasionally some are based on fact.
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
Currently it has a good level of randomness, but CRP feels a little bit too controlled and less random than LRB4. I miss how much a get the ref kick off result actually affected a game and I kind of miss the old way of evening out TR/TV differences with a random solution.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
No. Inducements are only meant to go part of the way to making up the difference between teams. If you want to play up TV then be a better coach. If you play in a league suck it up and be a better coach.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
I only play league with the SWL since the change to CRP, but the feeling I get is all three of the reasons you have listed compounded. It is a good combo that only some teams can build and it is a relatively easy combo to build. Add in that you can get it on multiple players in a team and it is a skill combo specifically built to remove players form the pitch rather than win the game and it is worse than spam guard dwarfs.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
Higher attrition levels as players get more skills. It needs to be a real achievement and ongoing sacrifice to keep more than one legend in your team.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
It is an essential mechanic for allowing balance in the game. It is not perfect and could always be better, but some beardy rules lawyer (or meta gamer) will find a way to maximise efficiency in a points based system.
In my opinion treasury should be included in TV calculations to encourage coaches to spend it and not just stock pile for a rainy day.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
Good idea, but I am yet to actually see any of my teams get affected by it. There needs to be some mechanic to top out the TV of teams.
As with TV I think that it would be an effective way to top out team values if the treasury was included in the TV rating and thus affected spiralling expenses.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
Honestly it needs to actually do something productive in terms of the game. Maybe if FAME was just replace with straight out fan factor it might encourage people to want fans.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
Stars should be over-inflated. They are not made to make up 100% of the TV difference. They are just there to try and help you not get flogged.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
As it is now there should be good rosters, mid rosters, bad rosters and weird rosters. I only play this game because there is a mix of each and I can challenge myself in different ways with different teams. Otherwise I would play chess.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
Not really. Some teams are slow play teams like dwarfs and some teams are one turning mofos like skaven or flying gobbos. Really excessive stalling just needs to be reduced, but that is a mentality thing rather than a rules thing.
A one nil win is as much a win as a four nil win.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
It would make some of the weaker and agility/passing teams more fun, but as above it is a mentality thing rather than a rules thing.
Possibly add in a mechanic where the crowd may throw a rock at the ball carrier for every turn that they don't score.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
I might be the only one but I liked aging as a mechanic. Yes it was painful and horrible and arbitrary, but it made keeping a high SPP player an actual question you had to answer after every game.
On a side note I also miss the old niggle rule meaning you actually missed a game as it made the injury actually mean something from game to game.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Secret weapons should be encouraged. Every team should have access to at least one (even high elves with their goody two shoes would be arrogant enough to walk on the field with something they deemed was appropriate).
Secret Weapons should also not be auto banned but should follow a mechanic similar to the send offs for fouls.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Wizards are fine as is. if you are playing with that much of a TV difference you deserve one.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
Gold is fine. You use it to buy players, re-rolls and Apo's. What else are you going to buy without adding another mechanic to the game?
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
I think I answered this above. Some of the kick off results should have more of an impact to add in some more randomness. Blood bowl should never be predictable. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 11:30 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
I'd argue though that most people that hate ageing hate it because of what it does to their team. That's got to be correct, right? |
I'm with DrDiscoStu here and think you're not spot on.
IMO people accept very well that a mechanism which stops successful teams (own and others) from growing into invincible monsters is needed.
The frustration comes from the fact that you cant do anything about ageing. Everybody can take a kill on the pitch. It happens. But after 50 games of carefully developping your Saurus or Longbeard to get that 5th skill you get a PM that reads 'Your player is crap now. Retire. Regards, Nuffle'? Few will find that funny. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 13:00 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: | | mister__joshua wrote: |
I'd argue though that most people that hate ageing hate it because of what it does to their team. That's got to be correct, right? |
I'm with DrDiscoStu here and think you're not spot on.
IMO people accept very well that a mechanism which stops successful teams (own and others) from growing into invincible monsters is needed.
The frustration comes from the fact that you cant do anything about ageing. Everybody can take a kill on the pitch. It happens. But after 50 games of carefully developping your Saurus or Longbeard to get that 5th skill you get a PM that reads 'Your player is crap now. Retire. Regards, Nuffle'? Few will find that funny. |
Aging doesn't have to be as drastic and frustrating as it was in LRB4. I'd be in favour of aging based on games played rather than spp. For example, we could say that a player gains a niggle every 75 games they play. That would avoid the madness of players 'aging out' on their first skill roll. Also, the new niggling injury is much less severe than in LRB4, so it wouldn't be an auto-retire - it would mean the player would slowly deteriorate over time and the coach would have to weigh up their usefulness.
Could also make it more fluffy by saying it doesn't apply to the 'undead' players, to give their teams a bit of a boost, or could say that elves and dwarves get a niggle every 100 games (if they're supposed to be 'longer-lived' races).
I feel there should be something to ensure that legends don't dominate for ever and meet their maker eventually. The LRB5 niggle means they will still die on the pitch - it just gives them a helping hand! 
I think the reason most people hate it is because they remember LRB4 aging, which was a crude and poorly-conceived hammer (and generated a lot of 'collateral damage'). Imo, the implementation was bad, not the concept! |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" 
Last edited by JellyBelly on %b %29, %2016 - %13:%Apr; edited 2 times in total |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
@Rawfl: I don't see how that's vastly different to hating what it does to your team? You even give an example
I get that your gripe with it is how it does it rather than why it does it though.
Anyway, as I say I'm not for or against aging. I find the arguments of people 'for' aging to be interesting, but that doesn't make them any more valid or right than the arguments of people against. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
Last edited by mister__joshua on %b %29, %2016 - %13:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 13:23 |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 15:27 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
Not really, no. When I played under LRB4 I hated ageing. |
So did everybody bar Pythrr. However since the demise of LRB4 we can see the benefit of aging. Aging is a pretty negative concept. And under LRB4 and LRB4 niggle is extremely negative.
However if you mention aging, those that remember it think of it as the LRB4 negative mechanic.
Aging the neg trait, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact how it made coaches spread SPP around it's extremely positive. People can't help relate aging to the actual negative factors that it gave under LRB4. In reality you could give any sort of penalty. so it's an open book. |
|
|
Tripleskull
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 15:33 |
|
I would like to see the SI tabel changed.
AG and ST injuries are typically either career enders or insignificant and so they are inherently unfair. I would like to see all serious injuries converted to MA-, AV-, niggling and decay. These injuries are never insignificant and could therefore merit a TV reduction. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:12 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | So did everybody bar Pythrr. However since the demise of LRB4 we can see the benefit of aging. Aging is a pretty negative concept. And under LRB4 and LRB4 niggle is extremely negative.
|
I can only say: Almost everybody in this thread voted against aging. If there ever was a clear opinion on something it is that aging sucks. And the new rules haven't really changed anything about it. The only thing that is probably different in the new rules that you get your team beat down a little earlier than before. |
|
|
DrDiscoStu
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:20 |
|
Harvest Mouse, pure curiosity here, genuinely curious as to your thoughts. Would you mind elaborating as to why forcing a coach to spread the SPP's around is extremely positive? |
_________________
Check out my fishing and camping blog.
The Black Pearl Bounty-Board.
GUARD CONQUERS ALL! |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:21 |
|
I'd also say how many understand aging as a concept? Rather than what they have heard about aging or what happened to them with aging during LRB4.
Aging is pretty negative, so it's not ideal. Also aging as it was under LRB4 isn't acceptable. Retiring a niggled/aged vamp on first skill...............that isn't right in anybodies book.
Can aging work? I don't know.........it's certainly not easy. However a concept that encouraged players to spread spp around without retiring players would certainly benefit the game. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:25 |
|
| DrDiscoStu wrote: | | Harvest Mouse, pure curiosity here, genuinely curious as to your thoughts. Would you mind elaborating as to why forcing a coach to spread the SPP's around is extremely positive? |
Ask Tomay that one. It's a little artificial I grant you. However, right now you tend to have teams made up of 2 tiers. Stars/Fodder. It just seems natural even if you don't intend it. However if you spread the SPP around you have a more balanced team. Stars, up coming stars, potential stars, fodder.
This tends to make for larger rosters and play that leans on better coaching rather than better team management.
Do you feel that roster balance is better now than in LRB4 (disregarding attrition due to the lack of journeymen)?
Now, I need to get back to the cycling Shane Sutton/Emma Pooley debate where I'm really putting my neck on the line. |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:28 |
|
5) I find it very suprising the amount of people that says that TV is "fine" or "good" when it does a terrible job at assessing the actual worth of a team in terms of gameplay.
| harvestmouse wrote: | I'd also say how many understand aging as a concept? Rather than what they have heard about aging or what happened to them with aging during LRB4.
Aging is pretty negative, so it's not ideal. Also aging as it was under LRB4 isn't acceptable. Retiring a niggled/aged vamp on first skill...............that isn't right in anybodies book.
Can aging work? I don't know.........it's certainly not easy. However a concept that encouraged players to spread spp around without retiring players would certainly benefit the game. |
I hated aging too back in the day, but I understood the need for it. Now I actually miss it. I'd go for a less punishing (and frustrating) way, so that instead of applying an injury on aging fail it would halt the player development, preventing them to gain any more skills.
aging -> skill cap |
_________________
 |
|
Tricktickler
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 16:29 |
|
| DrDiscoStu wrote: | | Harvest Mouse, pure curiosity here, genuinely curious as to your thoughts. Would you mind elaborating as to why forcing a coach to spread the SPP's around is extremely positive? |
Because auto losing in every orc/dwarf vs chaos match-up is much worse. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
