razcrux
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
|
 Posted:
Jan 20, 2013 - 18:59 |
 
|
The ones I watch, the news letters you offer, my own experience of seeing typical skill progressions, the "best players" from any team etc. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2013 - 19:19 |
|
Well I think you are correct on some points but not others.
For example, we've only 'fairly' recently changed over to CRP. Under LRB 4 (and any of the rules that progressed under 3rd ed) there was a fair diversity of teams that won at high TR.
Under CRP, the builds are yes; less creative and the teams doing well at high TR are fewer.
At low TV or non progressive, it doesn't really matter so much. A few rosters do better than others, but pretty much any roster can win as winning tourneys will come down to luck, skill, and the skill choices you make.
I do like NTBB in principle, you'll never see it here officially though, nor are you likely to see any more divisions added, right now we have 3 active divisions, this has been slimmed down from 5 of a few years ago. So adding more divisions definitely isn't what the site wants.
Academy is planned to comeback though.
And as you said, the rosters are intentionally unequal (not to be confused with unbalanced). I also know that NTBB rules are aware of this also, and the aim is to narrow the balance band.
Claw at high TV is a great skill, and good for the game, you are misinterpreting the skill's impact. Combining it with other skills where there is a problem. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2013 - 21:26 |
|
| razcrux wrote: | Actually a Group in the Legaue could get kinda close to at least some of the settings (like Piling on only working on Injury, not armor). With a few more items as optional toggles in the tool it could work as a League group.
This wouldn't address the team-changes themselves though, as that really requires new rosters, as far as I can tell.
Clearly both aspects of this would involve a lot of work, and that's ignoring the entirely new rule changes proposed like Bank charges... |
We have some of these rules available on fumbbl already, not the bank or roster changes, but some of the others, and there are a number of leagues using different variations of them. |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2013 - 23:21 |
|
I do like what is proposed with one exception... the Bank rule.
What is it supposed to solve for? The notion that some teams don't need cash and thus collect large bank sums? And so the solution is to penalize ALL teams that might happen to have large bank accounts?
The teams that actually need a good sized bank are the teams that tend to spend cash (ie elves, rats, slann). The teams that collect cash don't need it.
__Synn |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2013 - 23:50 |
|
The ability to stockpile large amounts of cash at mid-TV allows teams to "blast through" the soft cap for TV for a sustained period. It also allows teams to stockpile cash for things like Majors, where a team at high TV can effectively nullify a lower TV team's inducements through simply buying their own. A morg+bribe+wizard (as an example) is great, but it's nowhere near as good if the opponent has the same and you can then only spend the same TV differential on something less useful.
Example of a match where bought inducements made a difference: FUMBBL Cup Final X
An Apo was bought in the semifinal, too (both were used), so the bank would have prevented the wizard being bought for the final. |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:04 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | The ability to stockpile large amounts of cash at mid-TV allows teams to "blast through" the soft cap for TV for a sustained period. |
Have we seen this in practice here on Fumbbl? Does the data suggest it?
| dode74 wrote: | It also allows teams to stockpile cash for things like Majors, where a team at high TV can effectively nullify a lower TV team's inducements through simply buying their own. A morg+bribe+wizard (as an example) is great, but it's nowhere near as good if the opponent has the same and you can then only spend the same TV differential on something less useful.
Example of a match where bought inducements made a difference: FUMBBL Cup Final X
An Apo was bought in the semifinal, too (both were used), so the bank would have prevented the wizard being bought for the final. |
So in the future with Bank, we should never see a team capable of buying 100k inducements two games in a row? Is that what is being suggested as an outcome of this rule?
Here is where the lack of a bank saved my ass:
Sleepwalking Elite.
I had to buy 7 positionals to replace CAS'ed players over a 5 game stretch including.
If I didn't have the cash to spare, I would have been much more unlikely to play rougher games knowing injuries will be hurting the team development (something ironically that is different about CRP compared to LRB).
Sorry, but this is a case where the solution (penalize stockpiling money) is worse than the problem being solved for ('oh noes... that min/max team has a million in the bank').
__Synn |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:06 |
|
Btw.... generally tourneys in Fumbbl have dynamic cash after each match. Thus Chuck could have had that much money.
__Synn |
|
|
razcrux
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:09 |
|
@harvestmouse right I do not know all the history of the FUMBBL, I think this website and the service it offers are really awesome. A thriving, living online blood bowl game! I was very impressed to see this all here on offer.
It was confusing when I signed up to see 5 divisions but only be allowed to make in 3 of them, especially when you are a "new" person the "academy" seems like the logical place to make your first team, and then you can't... anyways, a minor hurdle in the long run.
I don't think though that discussing the details is what is important here, the essence of the discussion should be around the intention and the goal. The NTBBL's goal is to have very narrow tiers. All the changes they propose, are, in my understanding, just a consequence of that goal. Whether that be a bank rule, limitations on piling on, or making claw combine with other skills less effectively are simply results of that goal -- debating them here isn't, in my mind, actually useful because the first step would be deciding that we wanted to develop such a thing into its own division.
Now I understand that the FUMBBL wants to reduce divisions, not add them; I presume due to overhead and maintenance implications. If that is the case, and if there is not a lot of interest in a NTBBL-esque area, then so be it. Perhaps people like me are just random anomalies and the majority of the crowd is quite content with the wider tiers and the dominance of the killstack.
If however there were more people like me, then the first step would be to simply define the goal, and dedicate an area to it. A lot could already be done just through cost modifications to the teams. You can already get a lot of quick balance changes put into place by making some cost adjustments, and those wouldn't be all that crazy to maintain and program since it's nearly the same game but with just a couple of stat changes.
Changes would need to be discussed, probably best by some community nominated committee, and then those changes would always have to be in reference to existing play stats to validate the need for such a change. Changes would then be done from two ends, the bottom team and the top team, and in very small iterative changes you can start to push the bottom team up and the top team down a small amount. Wait for games to be played, and remeasure. So in the fist iteration perhaps the halfling team might get a small buff of some kind and then the, say the orcs might get a small nurf. Blitzers at +10k each might be all that is needed to push them down just enough to get them more equal. The same might then be repeated with the next top-team, with another cost increase to a positional and so forth.
Anyways, all this to say: is there a general desire for a narrow tier blood bowl? and if yes, what has there been done here? (maybe there is a league-group that offers this that I am unaware of?) and if no, then the point is somewhat all moot and I can just get back to worrying about my team management instead.
May nurfle be with you. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:19 |
|
Nothing to do with overheads, the reason for the drop of divisions (faction & unranked) was dilution of the membership. Having 5 divisions (not including stunty) means games are diluted over more divisions than need. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:26 |
|
@ Synn| Quote: | | Have we seen this in practice here on Fumbbl? Does the data suggest it? |
I've not looked on FUMBBL, but I've seen it in leagues I play in.
| Quote: | | So in the future with Bank, we should never see a team capable of buying 100k inducements two games in a row? Is that what is being suggested as an outcome of this rule? |
They can do it. Anything over the bankable amount would be considered part of TV, so if you want to stockpile then you take the TV hit for it.
| Quote: | Here is where the lack of a bank saved my ass:
Sleepwalking Elite.
I had to buy 7 positionals to replace CAS'ed players over a 5 game stretch including.
If I didn't have the cash to spare, I would have been much more unlikely to play rougher games knowing injuries will be hurting the team development (something ironically that is different about CRP compared to LRB). |
Injuries are supposed to hurt team development, and the other NTBB rules will reduce the injury rate anyway.
| Quote: | | Sorry, but this is a case where the solution (penalize stockpiling money) is worse than the problem being solved for ('oh noes... that min/max team has a million in the bank'). |
I disagree. And please don't strawman - I said nothing about minmaxers.
| Quote: | | Btw.... generally tourneys in Fumbbl have dynamic cash after each match. Thus Chuck could have had that much money. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamic cash", but take a look at his winnings. It wouldn't have been possible unless he'd given up more inducements.
We see it different ways: I like what it does, you don't. I can live with that, and I'm not going to get into an argument about it as it's probably a moot point anyway: it's not like the rules are likely to change in a big way in the future. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 00:37 |
|
Nerfing piling on has nothing at all to do with narrowing tiers. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:01 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Sorry, but this is a case where the solution (penalize stockpiling money) is worse than the problem being solved for ('oh noes... that min/max team has a million in the bank'). |
I disagree. And please don't strawman - I said nothing about minmaxers |
From a Fumbbl 'competitive' division point of view I agree with Synn.
It might be OK for leagues but the bank sounds just horrible of B & R.
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Nerfing piling on has nothing at all to do with narrowing tiers. |
As I read it that is part of the CRP+ and the CRP+ is included in the NTBB. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:11 |
|
| razcrux wrote: | | Anyways, all this to say: is there a general desire for a narrow tier blood bowl? and if yes, what has there been done here? (maybe there is a league-group that offers this that I am unaware of?) and if no, then the point is somewhat all moot and I can just get back to worrying about my team management instead. |
I don't really think there is. Everyone has their own idea of what rule changes they like.
I like the CRP+ changes am not interested in narrowing the tiers.
I believe that the plan is to eventually have custom rosters in the [L]eague division. Then people can do pretty much what ever they like. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
