FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 15:16

Well, a lot of it seems to be coming from an attempt to make teams that get injured a lot at high TV more viable V the others. If that's the aim just scrap spiralling expenses. Does SE have a effect on bashy teams? Usually not, they have massive Gold stores by the time the get there. My WIL Dwarf team has played just over 50 games and has got around 900,000 gold. It's been in SE territory for most of the last 30 games. So it has maybe 350,000 gold less than it would have without SE. But think about it does SE actually make a difference here other than reduce the amount of gold the team has that they are never going to use? I think most people would have a hard time believing you if you said yes.

But if we move on to the teams that can't take the punishment as well SE has quite often an effect on them when they get to high TV, making their stay shorter and less resilient to a game of heavy perms and deaths. Giving them another 350,000 gold over that 25/30 game period could really help them. So SE penalises those teams that need the most gold to replace players most. Many high AV teams have piles of cash they are never going to use unless the coach decides they want to rebuild from scratch with an all rookie team but keep the team history. And if they want to do that how exactly is that a problem V creating a new team?

Basically all of these rules that are designed to try and even things up just make it harder for the races they are supposedly trying to help. Bank rule is no exception.

_________________

DLE College 7s

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 16:01

Faulcon wrote:

As the lizard team above who played many years in lrb4 I love not having a bank rule. I wrote off entire 7 game seasons in lrb4 rebuilding because I didn't have enough gold to replace dead lizards. I went into many games with less than 11 players simply because I couldn't afford to replace them for multiple games.

For me what's not fun is knowing I have no chance in the next 2 or 3 games but have to play them anyway. That's 2 or 3 weeks of annoyance and good riddance to it.

This, honestly, is all that needs to be said about the bank rule really.

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 16:20

Garion wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

On what basis do you hold that view?

just because its made its way on the the cyanide game, I understand from what I've read (so 3rd part info) that they are sticking to the same core rules. But me holding this view is just my innate pessimism nothing more Smile

I hope I am wrong though. I really do.

So this depends on how you define 'core' I suppose.

Cyanide added Brets, they made Human Catchers AV8 (and that made about zero difference to anything), and they made Orc Blitzers cost 90k before reverting them back to 80k in the latest patch/update.

They also added stadium upgrades and allow you to purchase various stadium effects which do have an effect on the game.

They also 'botched' the inducement phase.

Now, it's the later one which we are really interested in, because if you do inducements as cyanide does them (and there is nothing in any rule set ever which indicates that that is the way to do them) then you do probably want some kind of bank rule, because otherwise the hoarders can just induce like crazy with nothing given back to their opponent.

I can't say for certain how much input plasmoid had with cyanide directly, but I do have the suspicion that the bank rule wasn't so much just about the bank rule as much as it was also about controlling the way the inducement phase works.

So, with regards to the actual rules coming out, I would not expect them to 'copy' from cyanide, I rather suspect it's more an issue of cyanide being unable (for whatever reason you prefer) of implementing the rules as they are supposed to be implemented.

Let us not forget there were also several issues with various skills (and still are some) with regards to them being optional (like fend, side step, juggernaut, ...). The cynic will say cyanide was just too lazy (or incompetent, but I don't agree with that one) to put in a choice pop up.

Who knows ultimately what the reasons for any of these changes were, I just doubt there was a lot of GW involvement in any of them.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 17:59

licker wrote:

I can't say for certain how much input plasmoid had with cyanide directly, but I do have the suspicion that the bank rule wasn't so much just about the bank rule as much as it was also about controlling the way the inducement phase works.

As I understand it. They were pointed in the direction of his stuff. Approached him, he gave his opinion, signed an NDA and then he was pretty much in the dark with what followed. That's how I understood the situation anyway.

They looked at the CRP+ stuff as a package and took what they wanted, not all but some.

As for the future, who knows. I'm sure they'd now look to Plasmoid if his stuff would suit future changes.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 18:11

Yes that was my understanding as well, and due to NDAs plasmoid cannot tell us more, which is fine.

Cyanide likes to keep things close to the vest though, again, that's fine too, it just renders all the speculation people enjoy pointless.

Which is also fine. Nothing wrong with being aggressively pointless on the internet Smile

Speculation that GW is going to 'take a page from cyanide' is interesting I suppose. But I don't think anyone would have any reason to actually believe that will be the case.

Unless they do, in which case they could enlighten us, unless they also signed an NDA Wink

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 18:28

Garion wrote:

JimmyFantastic wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

Of all the recurring Internet Blood Bowl arguments, the whole treasury thing is the one that I understand the least. What physical difference does it actually make when a Blood Bowl team has 150 k or 500 k in the bank?

Yeah, crazy that people have issues with it outside of BB2. In BB2 however, there is no declare petty cash phase so the bank rule is the only thing stopping complete degeneracy.

so on cyanide you just get to stick in 150k in before the match to get a wizard and it doesn't add to your TV?

I forgot about this thread after I posted in it but yes, yes you can. And it just so happens that the BB2 World Champ did this several times, as did the winner of the 3rd place playoff Smile

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 18:37

licker wrote:

I can't say for certain how much input plasmoid had with cyanide directly, but I do have the suspicion that the bank rule wasn't so much just about the bank rule as much as it was also about controlling the way the inducement phase works.

That's giving him far too much credit.
He didn't even know how his own version of the bank worked until Galak explained it to him.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 18:56

JimmyFantastic wrote:

Garion wrote:

JimmyFantastic wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

Of all the recurring Internet Blood Bowl arguments, the whole treasury thing is the one that I understand the least. What physical difference does it actually make when a Blood Bowl team has 150 k or 500 k in the bank?

Yeah, crazy that people have issues with it outside of BB2. In BB2 however, there is no declare petty cash phase so the bank rule is the only thing stopping complete degeneracy.

so on cyanide you just get to stick in 150k in before the match to get a wizard and it doesn't add to your TV?

I forgot about this thread after I posted in it but yes, yes you can. And it just so happens that the BB2 World Champ did this several times, as did the winner of the 3rd place playoff Smile

I don't like just jumping all over Cyanide out of habit, but the structure and execution of that tournament was not brilliant, was it? The loftier goal from their point of view was publicity and shifting units, but it wasn't exactly a structure that screamed out 'good environment for competitive Blood Bowl'. This pre-game sequence bug / method of programming / house rule isnt ideal either, is it?

I'm sure it generated enough buzz and shifted enough units to be worthwhile.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 21:13

licker wrote:

Speculation that GW is going to 'take a page from cyanide' is interesting I suppose. But I don't think anyone would have any reason to actually believe that will be the case.

Artistically they have taken a lot of influence (and have been using their artwork). You'd think it'd also be in their best interest to have a uniform game.

"I've played the computer game, I wouldn't mind playing the board game too."

Also the fact that the studio are pretty much starting from scratch on a game that is very well developed. That's not something they've ever done before, nor is that easy.

So...........I'm sure they'd at least consult with Cyanide. Potential problems etc. Or they could just not change anything. Or they could totally re-invent the game.

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 21:22

From whats been spoiled they havent changed much. Though Catchers remain av7 with a cost of 60k.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

JackassRampant

Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 21:24

JimmyFantastic wrote:

From whats been spoiled they havent changed much. Though Catchers remain av7 with a cost of 60k.

I like.

_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 21:24

Unless it's a typo - see also star skills from before people pointed it out to them.

They've said no core rules changes (actually said - no need to speculate), there have been some new stars shown, there is a possibility Human Catchers get a 10 k price break (not a potential thing I'm crazy about, but it makes about three fifths of naff all difference in reality). You aren't going to see concessions to Cyanide across the board, that is a sandbox environment away from 'Blood Bowl'.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 23:24

Well saying no core rule changes doesn't mean that they can't have some core rule 'typos' instead Smile

uzkulak

Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 23:25

I would prefer that teams had 16 players and 100k in the bank rather than 11 players and 700k in the bank. Currently a lot of teams hover at 9-10 players until they can afford to jump all the way to 13 at once, its an efficient way of avoiding deaths/perms on the line gimps. The bank rule would make this process more difficult.

Employing the bank rule (alongside SE) also seems to deter coaches from having larger rosters - where journeymen do not provide cover. As it becomes comparatively harder to maintain 14 man teams at high tv versus 11 man teams.

My personal view of BB is that we should do everything we can to reward and encourage larger rosters as I believe this is better for competitive game play, softens the impact of cpomb etc and increases tactical options through player specialization. I dont see that the bank rule does this, except at a very superficial level with teams that have a low part of their tv made up skills. In short it seems to be a dumbing down mechanic.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Jul 27, 2016 - 23:58

uzkulak wrote:

I would prefer that teams had 16 players and 100k in the bank rather than 11 players and 700k in the bank. Currently a lot of teams hover at 9-10 players until they can afford to jump all the way to 13 at once, its an efficient way of avoiding deaths/perms on the line gimps. The bank rule would make this process more difficult.

Employing the bank rule (alongside SE) also seems to deter coaches from having larger rosters - where journeymen do not provide cover. As it becomes comparatively harder to maintain 14 man teams at high tv versus 11 man teams.

My personal view of BB is that we should do everything we can to reward and encourage larger rosters as I believe this is better for competitive game play, softens the impact of cpomb etc and increases tactical options through player specialization. I dont see that the bank rule does this, except at a very superficial level with teams that have a low part of their tv made up skills. In short it seems to be a dumbing down mechanic.

Your personal view isn't validated by how coaches actually use the mechanics of the game as it exists to deal with attrition or competitive play though.

As far as we can tell, coaches have, through collective experience found some of the most efficient ways to deal with inherent balance issues of the game. We have coaches who pick, we have coaches who recycle teams once TV or perms adversely affect their competitiveness, we have coaches who sweet spot with only a core of 3 players who have all the skills, we have coaches who menmax regen 40k lino teams and use the boot while not suffering much in the way of competitiveness.

I enjoy having larger rosters but thats because I have more vectors for SPP accrual and skill rolls, but it's not the cure to what ails BB as a game. We've already found ways, some of them don't jibe with this meta ideal state of what BB should be.