LRB4 was better than CRP, so why not bring it back?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
May 20, 2014 - 07:49 |
 
|
@Harvetstmouse
I agree generally, with one exception. In case ALL teams start with close to equal power level, and ALL teams progression is about the same powerful at most TV levels, then it is possible to have a unified pricing and ruleset, which works for both worlds. |
_________________
 |
|
Macabeo
Joined: Feb 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 21, 2014 - 23:18 |
|
My two cents on the major differences:
Traits: While I wholeheartedly agree with their purpose, which is limiting access to some combos, they are an unnecessarily clunky way of doing so. Look at Strong Arm: by virtue of being an Strength skill if you have accurate you have to roll a double to get it and pass other skills like Dodge. This is why I always suggest making Piling On usable only when the Strenght of the attacker is higher than the Strength of the defender, so (C)POMB is viable only for players that are hard to skill up/unreliable/slow/have rolled a stat increase... Also, many of the skills that were Traits aren't that powerful anyway. CRP wins here.
TV and cost of the skills: First, variety in skills is not obtained quantitatively by giving lots of options, but rather qualitatively by providing viable options. This is why the nerf of some skills in CRP is a huuuuge mistake, barring Strong Arm. Rather strive for having interesting skills instead of offering discounts (I would choose a 30k Block skill over a free Pass Block skill every single time), which keeps the system simple and easy to take account for. Second, apart from (C)POMB and maybe MA10+Sprint I don't think there's any overly powerful combo out there. Sure, Blodge Sidesteppers with DT are annoying, but that's the appeal of developing your players. Penalizing skill stacking means we'd see fewer combos, and that'd suck, and we'd also see fewer of the least popular skills. Third, the flat cost of doubles and stat increases in LRB4 does not reflect the strength of the player. Fourth, TV problems are mostly down to matchmaking and exploiting some inducements (the wizard in particular). Fix the wizard and the skill balance and leave TV as it is. LRB4 had better skill balance, CRP has a better "strength measuring" and inducement system.
Fouling: A good example of why simpler doesn't necessarily mean better. The current system is bad design, as it benefits teams that already outnumber the opponent, which makes the match even more one-sided. On the other hand, Dirty Player in LRB4 was much too strong. Bring the eye back, make DP +0/+2 and no self-assist to encourage positional play for and against fouls. As for Sneaky Git, a possible buff is that the eye doesn't switch if armor is not broken.
Aging: Penalizing for skilling up a player is awful game design, team development is almost as rewarding as winning in BB. Buffed fouling should be enough for everybody to have a weapon against legends. |
Last edited by Macabeo on %b %22, %2014 - %12:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Megrim
Joined: Apr 24, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 01:51 |
|
If one is going to rebalance the TV and skill relationship, I'd say that changing skill TV costs to match player xp level might be a good start.
Not only will this make thematic sense from an rpg perspective (your dudes level up and are worth 'more'), but also makes team value easier to balance around, since the more time a player has played, the more TV they are worth.
You can also still attach premium costs to hard-to-get skills (doubles, stats).
So, in the long run, instead of having a flat amount of TV that an optimal player is worth and being able to park the team at a certain 'optimal' range, as long as those players continue being effective they end up costing more and more TV.
This then, in theory, should synchronise nicely with current rules for Spiralling Expenses and force team managers to make some actual choices about how their long-term plans unfold. |
|
|
deyempe
Joined: Aug 14, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 05:08 |
|
Hi guys.
As you may or may not know, I have not been playing Blood Bowl for very long. My first game was about 2 years ago on Cyanides Legendary Edition, and my first online game was here on fumbbl. however, despite my relative newness to the game... my father whom I lived with till 16 owned a 3rd edition board game, he used to go out and play it somtimes, and somtimes I would watch games played. When I was a young boy, all I wanted to do was play that game; I used to take it all out of the box, setup the mini's on the board, and pretend to play it (lol) the rulebook didnt appeal to me at that time as I did far to much reading/learning in school but i did used to look at the pictures and read bits of it. I fell inlove with the game before I had ever even played it. I never did learn to play it as a kid :/ ..I didnt learn the game until years later, im 26 now so I would have been 24 when Ieventually played a game.
Anyway, I have been on this site a while now, and I'm continually learning things about the game, its history, its fluff, ect.ect. I am obviously now-where near aswell versed as some of you here and Im not going to pretend to be either. This thread has been a particularily interesting read. Garion's 'larger than average' post was very informative about a few things and (not that it matters, I agree with lots of the suggestions, like the 2skill foul idea, the 20,20,30,30,40,40 idea, ect,ect) ...my point is this:
This game, Blood Bowl, has been around for a good few years (20+ i believe), and even tho its TT version isnt currently worked-on by GW it is still incarnated elsewhere (heare,Cyanide) and it is still enjoyed/played by a fair ammount of people. What I am trying to say is; the game has lived this long (in terms of interest) there is absolutely no reason why it should/would ever lose that interest. Tha game offers a unique experiance not really found anywhre else... this is the only sports game I play  (hehe)
I for one can honestly say I love this game. I wouldnt want to see the world without it. Period. NOW, it is clear to me that this game has gone through many changes over the years, I cannot vouch for any other ruleset because I never played them, Im CRP born and bred, however, anyone spending a short amount of time on this site and the problems with CRP become evident fast. Im not hear to offer anykind of solution or fix or anything like that. My purpose for posting was to outline a few things, my love for this game, your love for this game, how cool this game is and how uncool it would be if we didnt have it.
I thought this was a very interesting post and I feel it was largely if not totally ignored by the majority of you. I did not see any acknowledment of it, and it is clearly full of excellent points.
happygrue wrote:
| Quote: |
Great read Garion. I realize the folks who know what they are talking about (read: old wise heads) disagree with me on this, but I'm going to to ahead and have my opinion anyway:
I think fracturing the community with house rules would be a net good thing if done carefully. That is, that we don't actually fracture the community, but instead put a up a Manhattan Project together and test out ONE rules set with fixes attempted along the lines of what Synn says:
Synn wrote:
Very good work Garion.
I have never been shy about knocking Galak, but for all his flaws I will say this:
-He did push through a game that was an improvement over LRB4. The knock is that in his effort to 'push', he failed to make it the best game possible.
Literally, CRP only needs to address the balance of violence (clawpomb vs. fouling) and it will be perfect within the whistles. Anything else that could be done to improve the game would be the rosters/development aspect which is always going to be different for a massive online league like Fumbbl than for a small dedicated TT league.
This ONE rule set can be tested and tweaked for a time and then tried out against the current rules and a year later we have data on which is working better. While there is danger down that path as Garion points out, there is also gain: We no longer have a dead game. Personally, I fear that smart people dismiss this with hand waving, but we do have a dead game here. How many people hang on because there is still a chance the rules will change someday? What happens if it ever becomes clear to those people (myself included) that the rules really never will change again?
My thought is, if the rules are really now fixed in stone then we're boned over the long term. And if the rules ARE going to change again someday then why aren't we getting out ahead of it this time with some proposals based on data from an actual perpetual league? Shall we sit around and wait to see if Cyanide develops something they call LRB 7.0 and gets enough people playing it so that the NAF has to take it seriously? People tell me this will never happen, and maybe people know best. But if they somehow get 60% of the total people playing BB online to be playing it and can rightfully claim it as the "most recent" rules set then what is every future new person to the game going to think?
Anyway, let's get the wise guys together and see what they cook up. It will be fun to watch when the whole thing implodes in shouting match. I MEAN... it will work and there's nothing tow worry about! Wink
|
To add my own thoughts to this:
It is evident that there are some really knowledgable characters here where this game is concerned, and lots of you have ideas and love to discuss ways to improve this game - no bad thing. You have proved that time and time again, I know just by reading a few of the threads on site.
Now, here is the important part. Cynide have shown their lack of interest in balance and community feedback/integration - look at the Khorne roster, it is a total weakspot, now should they ever 'improve' the rules i.e release LRB7 ...do you think they would do it with the same ammount of dedication and care as you people here would do?.. do you think ti would be anywhere near as balanced or fun?... I dont. I think if they are allowed to take control of the game then we can kiss goodbye to the game we know and love. I dont want that to happen, that is why I wrote this post. I personally think the idea of a Fummbl LRB to be a brilliant idea and it doesnt have to affect the main game in anyway what so ever while it is being developed. And lets face it, if fummble continues to provide the excellent servce that it does then we(it) you can keep this game alive! ..any Coach worth his salt eventually ends up coming to fummbl after being largely dissatisfied with Cyanides version of the game.
Playerbase/interest isnt a problem, the small but significant problems with CRP is/are the problem. So to repeat whats already been said: do we.. and by we I mean you  (thou I am happy to help(playtest?) ) sit around and continue to agree to disagree about who thinks what would work better blah blah, or do we(you) actually start to make these changes happen.... lets face it, the problems have been identified, the possible solutions are many and varied, what more do we(you) need in order to start testing a better system.. we are already loseing the Box... how much longer is it going to be before we lose Ranked.. and ultimately League? Im sure there are plenty of us willing to start playtesting a new ruleset.
Fummbl is and does so much more for bloodbowl lovers/coaches, and it doesnt charge through the roof for the service. I think Ive said enough |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 06:50 |
|
| Megrim wrote: | If one is going to rebalance the TV and skill relationship, I'd say that changing skill TV costs to match player xp level might be a good start.
|
NO. This was a huge fail in 4.0, as a legend player went on becoming more and more TV expensive (as spps went up) despite not becoming any better. It meant that you had to fire legends after a while, which was deeply stupid. |
_________________
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 07:49 |
|
@pythrr
I totally agree. Most skills do not combo in a way that it makes each other more valuable. Not even dodge and block. So having 6 skills on a player should not be penalized.
The exception is the killstack, whose skills make each other more powerful. |
_________________
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:02 |
|
There are two ways I can think of to rationalize skill effectiveness and TV:
1) Assign skill costs according to the value of the skill, so 30k for Block, Dodge, Guard, MB, PO; 10k for the sucky ones; and 20k for the rest. Then you "spend" development points (TV) when you have earned them, according to a new table with 10k increments. If you think of the current leveling system as having 20k increments, a 10k one would look like this: 3/6/10/16/23/31/40/51/63/76/121/176. So if you want Block you have to wait for 1.5 current levels to get it (or 3x 10k levels). So: Block at 10 SPP, Block/MB at 31, Block/MB/PO/Claw at 176(!!). (Although I'd put Claw at 20k, so killstack at 121, whatever.) Doubles means you can take a skill of equivalent value or less from another list.
I'm not wild about that idea, but it's doable.
2) Alter the skills so they are closer in value to each other. This is quite hard. The most appealing way to do it is to INCREASE the value of all skills to equal the best ones, making everything more powerful, combining skill effects, etc. But I can't see how this is to be done while maintaining skill selection. And there are certain skill effects that cause all kinds of trouble for the game. For example, Dodge and Tackle: Dodge does two things, and Tackle cancels those two things, and therein is found a large portion of the brokenness with Stunty, Dwarves, and Amazons, as well as team building, costing, balance, high-TV elf survivability, and the rest.
I would DECREASE the effectiveness of the top skills, basically by splitting them. This would have a huge negative reaction I imagine, since everyone likes their skill selections, especially initially, to make a big difference in the player's ability. But once over the initial shock, I truly think it's the way it has to be.
Given the slower progression that would introduce, the level tiers would have to be re-jigged to 7, with smaller gaps in between.
Along with many other changes. Which will be detailed in my forthcoming book.  |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:18 |
|
@fidius
1. A generally agree, except the complication od development points.
30k: Block, Dodge, Guard, Mighty blow, Piling on, Tackle
20k: most other skills, not specified
10k: Pass, Accurate, Nerves of steel, Dumpoff, Hail mary pass, Catch, Diving catch, Sneaky git, Shadowing, Pass block, Kick off return, Strong arm
So whenever a player advances then may take a skill as per rules, no matter the cost. So it is possible to take a cheaper skill, or a more expensive.
2. Yeah, this is very hard. Not sure if it is possible. |
_________________
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:35 |
|
I've moved this to house rules. Seems apt.
(You know this is non... oh, whatever. ) |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %22, %2014 - %08:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:38 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | @pythrr
I totally agree. Most skills do not combo in a way that it makes each other more valuable. Not even dodge and block. So having 6 skills on a player should not be penalized.
The exception is the killstack, whose skills make each other more powerful. |
Pythrr is talking about lrb4 tr there which was a heck of a lot harsher than any addition. I disagree with you about skills not combining though. There are a number. Blodge ss dt. Frenzy juggernaut stand firm. Shadowing blodge ss and prehensile tail. Probably a bunch more too. Plus there used to be a number of other skill stacking combos that were sadly removed, like tentacles pro, and horns dauntless tackle . But that isn't the only reason 6 skills on 1 player should cost more. It encourages even skill distribution again which is imo better for the game. Also it impacts spiralling expenses a little more which helps keep teams in line and stops them bloating past the tv where all balance is lost. Also I would want the legendary trait for the 7th skill to add a nice bonus reward for getting there. Not only is it a nice bonus but it makes natural one turners only achievable by reaching legend.
So after thinking more about the legendary trait I have these so far-
Sprint - player must have sf to get this legendary trait.- works the same as Sprint does now.
Hideous Appearance - need FA - opponent now needs a 3 to block or blitz you
Lucky - need pro - pro rolls require a 3+ now.
Steadfast - stand firm needed - when a player with this skill falls over from a failed dodge roll against his st on the ag table. So st 5 needs a 3, st 5 needs a 2. If you pass the roll the player s action ends he remains standing but no turn over occurs.
I'm too tired to write anymore atm I have more though. But you get the idea. They are nice rewards, they make otherwise weak skills attractive so you can get the legendary trait. Also it brings a bit of flavor back to the skills. Some want all the skills to be vanilla but for me it's really boring. I like having a number of powerful skill combos. As long as they aren't op like cpomb. |
_________________
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:43 |
|
@Garion
Those you mention are linear combos, not exponential ones. As costing is linear, it is fine. As costing is linear, exponential combos are bargains. |
_________________
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:45 |
|
I disagree. Block is good, blodge is better. Then add Ss and again your players power increases much more than a rookie taking ss and so on. Which is why a cumulative increase is better. If I took block on 3 players or had block mighty blow and tackle on 1. That 1 player is much better than those 3
But as i said that isn't the only reason to move partially back that way. There are others that effect the meta game for the better. |
_________________
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:52 |
|
Does Dodge improve your blocking ability? Not really.
Does Migthy blow improve the efficiency of Piling on? Yes
Does Piling on improve the efficiency of Mighty blow? Yes
It works both ways for killstack. |
_________________
Last edited by bghandras on %b %22, %2014 - %08:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:53 |
|
What about a level system for skills.
Level 1 : crap utility skills and shitty mutations : -10K
Level 2 : General always take first skills block dodge guard MB : same value
Level 3 : Piling on, claw other trait style skills : +10k
Now just work out what goes where |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 22, 2014 - 08:57 |
|
| Bobs wrote: | What about a level system for skills.
Level 1 : crap utility skills and shitty mutations : -10K
Level 2 : General always take first skills block dodge guard MB : same value
Level 3 : Piling on, claw other trait style skills : +10k
Now just work out what goes where |
Sure, I agree, and fully support the idea. May disagree on block, etc. though. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
