Mnemok
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
|
 Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 12:38 |
 
|
I don´t like being aged more then the next man, I would like to see an option where you could cap a players starprogression i.e. not gain any more skills or traits. SPP gained by the player only rises the TR.
I know I can choose not to push the skill button, but I could be annoying always to have an S instead of an R on the team list  .
Maybe more than one APO could be freebooted, and a winning team is guaranteed minimum winnings?
(The APO suggestion could help the fluffy teams to survive, and the bashy teams to get matches against fluffy teams) |
Last edited by Mnemok on %b %26, %2004 - %12:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 12:39 |
|
Talk about such ideas on talkbloodbowl.com. They might consider it. |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
Loof
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 12:50 |
|
Ahh well i will post this here to... then someone might see it.
In general i think the new rules are a good idea since they lessen the amount of pure luck involved in makeing a good team.
I also agree that it will probably make it harder to play a high TR "elfy" team than a high TR "bashy" team.
Lastly i think that this system would work better if the TR calculation system was overhauled to. Since as it is now its not that good a indicator of how good a team is. Something that I think indicates that i am right is my observation that high TR teams almost always have a much lower team strength then TR.
Things I would like canged about TR calculation (and that we usualy do change when we play IRL)
Stop haveing pure spp affect teamrateing since what kinds of increases a player gets plays a large role in how good he is, also a player with 4 skills as oposed ti 3 isnt twise as good.
Money in treasury doesnt afect how good a team is so shouldnt be counted into TR.
Players with nigglings or statdecreases should increas TR less then equaly skilled players without nigglings or stat decreases.
This would result in a more linear TR increase curve, probably with a lower TR as a result in most cases, which would make playing good but not superb teams more workable in the new system. |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 13:04 |
|
Mnemok, you can't choose not to roll for a skill on a player as it stands now, at least not on FUMBBL, because your team won't be marked as "ready". |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 13:26 |
|
Right well couple of points. Mully aging didn't work to keep tr down, it was possible to not roll a single aging result on your team (extremem luck but it can happen) Also you have to ignore the fact of handicaps. In an open format I havn't played a single match with my skaven for example where i would have given away a handicap roll. They got up to around tr 290, its totally possible in an open format to just play games against the other high teams without using handicaps and the teams keep on getting increased TR. I know most coaches don't play like that, but that doesn't mean its impossible.
As for changing TR, well no becuase it works. Its a calculation of the overall worth of a team as a whole, not a value of the teams performance in the next match. This introduces the fact you have to actually manage the team rating, when the str system was introduced this whole aspect was taken off fumbbl as there were no handicaps. Sure as teams get higher the st value gets further away. Thats the whole idea, this encourages coaches to manage their rating so as to get the best performance from their TR in every match. If you can keep your tr lower you get the extra handicaps against the bigger team and if you have similar str ratings then you have the advantage. That again is why the tr system works, it rewards the coach who manages it the best. Sacking players with injurys, or even really good players with loads of SPP purly because they raise the TR so much. It goes hand in hand with player turnover which is what the rules are aiming to achieve, just like aging but that didn't on the whole work and was also unpopular with about 50% of the community.
Yes these rules will make it hard to have a team over TR300, thats the idea of them, the game was never meant to be played at this level and if you ask Jervis i believe the figure of TR200 was rumoured, which I agree is too low but 300 is about spot on for teams to start topping out.
As for the bashing teams doing better in this system, maybe they will but only by making a team and playing it to prove that is there going to be any grounds for complaint. If you don't do that then it won't get prooved and you never know maybe they won't. A bashing team takes longer to develop players. If they have a bad match where some die its going to take them longer to build back up again, Where on the other hand the elven teams can get spp really easily and I think they will just show more swings in TR but should on the whole remain just as good.
The whole idea of this system is to make its hard and challenging to make a high team (TR250+) and keep it up there, whilst encouraging coaches to turnover players and keep on bringing new fresh talent through the ranks. Sure if money gets tight you might have to have your tr a bit lower than you would like, but you get more handicaps that way and well no team stays at the top forever. |
|
|
Loof
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 13:44 |
|
Then we just disagree on what teamrating is suposed to do, in my opinion it is suposed to do what SR does on fumbbl, and not be an som kind of contest to see who can press it up the highest and still have a playable team.
So what im saying is none of your points changed my opinion but its still just my opinion (although you are absolutely right about not knowing how a system realy works untill you have tryed it). |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 15:00 |
|
Any discussion about this will lead to nothing at this point. The changes are here, we will see how they turn out.
Nontheless I'd like to voice my concerns with this system, again, as they still are the same ones I had when it evolved on Talkbloodbowl. In my opinion the whole rule set goes in the wrong way because it tries to fix something that is _not_ a problem in tabletop leagues and only occurs in open online leagues. I doubt there is any tabletop league out there that has teams reaching 500 TR and the like. Personally I just don't think the focus of the rules should change to online play, but always be centered around table top itself. And even if there are tabletop leagues that play to such a high TR, whose concern is it? As long as those people enjoy it, who cares - nobody outside that group is affected.
Which brings me right to the second thing I don't like about the rules - it introduces less flexibility to the coaches and requires every team to be coached alike. I simply don't like that. The Anarchists certainly lost a number of matches due to their ageing injuries, especially since handicaps where introduced, and Evo _does_ have enough money to replace those injured players ... but why force him? Who is hurt by the fact that a team that is coached like that exists? That is the beauty of the open system ... if you don't like to play teams at a TR rating beyond 250 don't. Nobody forces you to, and you can restrain and retire all the players you would like to retire on your own team. Why _force_ people to follow these standards you have yourself, if _they_ might _enjoy_ playing teams beyond that point? The playerbase here is by far large enough to allow people to choose whichever playing style suits you (and again, I just don't see it as a problem in Tabletop). I love playing with stunty teams, other people like the challenge of having to deal with a team that has a different configuration of players each match ... just let them.
Of course we know Jervis wanted teams to cap at around TR 250. So I guess this will probably mean we will be seeing these rules become offical sometimes. I still consider them a reduction in the variety of bloodbowl and the amount of choices one has. But, as usual, my views might differ from that of the majority as my main goal playing bloodbowl is to have fun, and not the need to win - and yes the two can differ quite a lot. Enough of the words though, let's see how this works out in the long run 
-Mnemon |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 15:12 |
|
I'm thinking that it's possible for some teams to be totally unaffected by the negative winnings. If a team gets a gate of 100.001+, the maximum negative modifier to the winnings is -3 (for a team with a TR of 301+). The average winnings from the game would in this case be +0.5, which means that the team doesn't suffer from negative winnings in the long run. And this is assuming that the team doesn't win its games, which adds another +1 modifier.
Getting a 100.001 gate isn't too hard for a high TR team. This requires in average a combined FF of around 29 (rounded up) which is quite attainable, especially if people cherry pick games based on the opponent's FF.
This has all been discussed at TBB before, and it was proposed that the winnings table would be adjusted by adding two new columns to the right. Am I right in assuming that we will still be using the normal winnings table in DivX? |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 15:36 |
|
for the moment but if needs must i can get ski to add a couple of extra bands onto the end
and mnemon i played in a table top league with team ratings that high and the problems with team rated that high is it comes down to which team rolls double 1 the least times (assuming both are competant coaches)
i still think there is plenty of flexability in the system but like you said get testing! |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:32 |
|
| Mr-Klipp wrote: | | swilhelm73 wrote: | | Do apoths still count as +5 sr in divX? |
I can't imagine why not. The str system is showing an aproximate ability of a team to win, and the value of having an apoth in any given game is not somehow higher or lower depending on how much was payed. |
Well, my question wasn't *should* it be changed, I just wanted to know if it *was* changed. Since the apoth was changed a fair amount, and this point wasn't mentioned, I presumed it a reasonable question...
Anyway, I'll take that as a no it hasn't changed, it is still +5 sr? |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 23:42 |
|
On the apoths freebooted for 10k issue:
I'm not certain whether the most important arguments in favour of this one has been brought up yet, therefore, just in case:
Very often new teams face the odd situation of playing with less than 11 players after their very first game. Not only is this annoying for experienced coaches, it is also really frustrating for brand-new players, which might be tempted to quit BB altogether after such a first deterring experience. A freebooted 10k apoth would help in 2 respects: Firstly, coaches are likely to handle at least 1 casuality; secondly teams can acquire additional players earlier during early team development.
I once started with an Elf-team, had 8 players left for my 2nd game and couldn't even afford an apoth (even though I started with FF9). And I've seen this too often happen to other players too. There's no need to punish new teams for being new that strongly.
(Additionally, a minor issue only, 50k apoths are rated 5 TR, this hurts new teams far more than developed ones.)
Freebooted apoths would solve one of the most important problems of today's Blood Bowl: the problem that new teams/coaches have to start with a tremendous disadvantage for no valid reason.
I'm convinced that a 10k apoth will recruit far more new players than any other rule possible change (and more eager players are good for everyone). |
|
|
Tor_AlKir
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 23:59 |
|
From what i gather, the big beef on aging is the niggling injuries and stat decreases. What makes ppl think that these will decrease when your team gets into negative winnings and you cant afford an apothecary? Id rather take my licks on an aging roll then send 11-16 players onto the pitch vs an Orc or Dwarf team and me not having an apothecary. The only difference i see is a positive or negative integer in front of your cash amount. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 00:20 |
|
| Tor_AlKir wrote: | | From what i gather, the big beef on aging is the niggling injuries and stat decreases. What makes ppl think that these will decrease when your team gets into negative winnings and you cant afford an apothecary? Id rather take my licks on an aging roll then send 11-16 players onto the pitch vs an Orc or Dwarf team and me not having an apothecary. The only difference i see is a positive or negative integer in front of your cash amount. |
Of course there should be injuries -- that's the whole point! Negative winnings is an alternate method for limiting the TR of teams, and this is exactly how it does it. I'd much rather suffer injuries on the pitch than randomly by aging. Besides, if you trim your TR yourself (by firing a player for example), you can still afford to hire your apoth. |
|
|
DoubleSkulls
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 13:41 |
|
| Tor_AlKir wrote: | | From what i gather, the big beef on aging is the niggling injuries and stat decreases. What makes ppl think that these will decrease when your team gets into negative winnings and you cant afford an apothecary? Id rather take my licks on an aging roll then send 11-16 players onto the pitch vs an Orc or Dwarf team and me not having an apothecary. The only difference i see is a positive or negative integer in front of your cash amount. |
That's the whole point. What it does mean is that
1) Those injuries are caused by in-game effects rather than a random event after the match.
2) You don't get damaged until you reach high TR. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 15:30 |
|
1. This is great.
I want to thank Grumbledook and Christer for having the guts to "change FUMBBL policy and get more involved in playtesting".
2. On the new Division X
Generally i am pretty sure that a couple of tweaks will be needed, but lets play some games first
In my oppinion the option to "sell back players to the bank" might be worth discussing. (you are at -120k, cash in your ogre).
Secondly i think there should be a limit on the SPP a player can gain. For example, a peak at 176 SPP. So the highest impact a single Player can ever have on a teamrating would be like 35+(Cost/100). This would mean that you are limited in the number of Superstars your team can have on its roster, but not force you to retire a single Hero that luckily survived on your team since game number one even if he has like 100 touchdowns scored.
Finally, some kind of reset would be nice. I mean i would like to see the way tems developed when started under the new rules. Maybe add a date of creation to the teams rosters?
Anyway big thumbs up from me I really wish i had the time to play right now! |
|
|
|
|
| |
Having issues launch...
Search
