Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
 Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:01 |
 
|
| Calcium wrote: | A lot of these suggestion are far too complex. A good rule is a simple rule, because most BB players don't possess a degree in quantum mechanics.
[...]
When should a rule become an equation? NEVER, that's when. |
Shadowing and Tentacles already uses equations.
You don't need a degree in quantum mechanics, only to have finished elementary school.
If the outset of half your posts lately wasn't "how to spite balle2000/other imagined cpomb crusader" you might not sound so borderline all the time. Speaking about being deluded I mean.
anti-clawpomb crusade?  |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:17 |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:29 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | Getting back on subject, I love this suggestion
| Roland wrote: | | I'd like to be able to remove negatraits on doubles again. |
bearing in mind I think this should only apply to big guys, and certainly not other ST4/5 players. |
I have mixed feelings about this idea. I played in lrb3 when this was standard and it did lead to some interesting and powerful BG, but the game has changed quite a bit since then.
My instinct is that BG should have an unreliable aspect - and not all BG have loner... Also, if a troll can suddenly become intelligent after rolling a double why cant a vamp learn to control their hunger until half time? Also some BGs (TGs) have the same negatrait as standard players. Why should one be able to lose the negatrait and not the other?
So, I kind of think this idea could only work as part of a much bigger change to the rules - ie a new edition.
I do agree though with your point about keeping equations off the pitch. We need to keep things simple! Tents, shadowing and dauntless are different scenarios in that they merely allow a stat to modify the dice roll, they dont define whether a skill could be used at all. |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:31 |
|
I actually agree about the simplicity and trying to keep equations out of it and I do have some of the qualifications which should make me less afraid of them. It's not that the equations are too complicated for anyone on this site. It's that simplicity is very powerful. Blood Bowl is already reasonable complicated and only doesn't seem so to us because some of us have been playing for years.
There are quite a lot of rules and so the simpler one can make each of them, probably the better.
I like a lot of the suggestions for the buffs, but it's the ones that you can write in one sentence that win it for me. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:39 |
|
I actually think the majority of big guys are worth the cash and TV - perhaps not across the whole range of TV we see here, but within some of it. With the exception of Minos, I think they're all of some worth and I actually tend to hire them all. Some are better / more value for money than others, of course, but I do like a big guy (that sentence is soon to be chopped up and inserted into Jimmy's signature). I was really surprised, for instance, someone was wondering about the Human Ogre the other day - that guy is so handy!
Even Minos have a place (base TV resurrection types of affairs), but I don't think that place is an environment you'd find on FUMBBL yet.
None of that is to say buffing them is a terrible idea if you're working on our own house rules. But I think they're alright, big guys. If I were house ruling, I'd start with the pointless positionals. Norse Thrower, anyone? |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:44 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | I do like a big guy |
Just to make it easier for Jimmy.....
Priceless!
 |
_________________
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 17:48 |
|
Big guys are about 10k too expensive. (Some might be 20k, but probably not more.)
Simplicfication? Remove all traces of Norse throwers. No need for such positional.
I actually think that you could fix a lot of problems with pricing without changing any mechanics. |
_________________
 |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 18:25 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Anyway, you may be right. It may upset the balance of the rules (and if it does, well that's a design flaw for putting too much weight on one skill). So we tweak again.
This is how you should progress by tweaking. I will never understand why the BBRC ripped out and gutted so much of LRB4 on a hunch. |
You're not tweaking. That's why I called the whole "anti-clawpomb" or "anti-po" argument obtuse.
Tweaking is the buffing +AV, making big guys immune to claw ("thick hide" skill). They are tweaks.
Eradicating PO almost entirely is not a tweak. It breaks the ruleset.
Also, might I add the entire debate is way too emotional. I have yet to see a reasoned statistical justification for any particular change. It's all based on "feeling" and anecdotal experience. Statistically we know that pomb isn't overpowered in most scenarios because agility teams are very competitive. You want to make bash teams worse because, what, you love pixels? Where's the analysis? I don't see any, at all. Just emotionally charged crap.
Tweak? You don't know the meaning of the word if you think these PO-nerf suggestions are tweaks. You want to change the rules, that's fine, like CRP was a big change from LRB4, you are advocating a near-similar change away from it except you aren't offering any of the balance because you don't understand how to balance a ruleset. It's a one-way anti-bash sentiment with little-to-no impartial thought or understanding put into it. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 18:52 |
|
Although I largely agree with what you are saying, surely your last post would have been better off in one of the other threads Chainsaw?
Given that I agree with Chainsaw over the whole 'nerf PO' crap, I would no longer run with my suggestion 'Pile on only to big guys/ST5'
I would keep 'Big guys immune to claw' - '+AV buff' and 'Big guys roll a Double - remove a negatrait'
Fluff wise, a smaller creature piling onto an Ogres nuts with his teeth would still hurt, and yes that's how I imagine piling on when I play  |
_________________
|
|
krytie
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 19:58 |
|
I think nega-trait removal on a double is a bit too OP but i would suggest that Legend skillers automatically have their nega-trait removed (and still get a skill roll).
((In fact, what about this for ALL players with any nega-trait reaching Legend - - after all, if they've gone that far they clearly have a handle on their Decay, etc. ))
This would be in addition to the earlier "Thick Hide" extraordinary skill. Either this comes with BGs who have Thick Skull or replaces/combines with the Thick Skull skill in general (and available to all as a regular S skill). |
_________________
There are three types of people in this world -- those who can count and those who cannot! |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 20:27 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Anyway, you may be right. It may upset the balance of the rules (and if it does, well that's a design flaw for putting too much weight on one skill). So we tweak again.
This is how you should progress by tweaking. I will never understand why the BBRC ripped out and gutted so much of LRB4 on a hunch. |
You're not tweaking. That's why I called the whole "anti-clawpomb" or "anti-po" argument obtuse.
Tweaking is the buffing +AV, making big guys immune to claw ("thick hide" skill). They are tweaks.
Eradicating PO almost entirely is not a tweak. It breaks the ruleset.
Also, might I add the entire debate is way too emotional. I have yet to see a reasoned statistical justification for any particular change. It's all based on "feeling" and anecdotal experience. Statistically we know that pomb isn't overpowered in most scenarios because agility teams are very competitive. You want to make bash teams worse because, what, you love pixels? Where's the analysis? I don't see any, at all. Just emotionally charged crap.
Tweak? You don't know the meaning of the word if you think these PO-nerf suggestions are tweaks. You want to change the rules, that's fine, like CRP was a big change from LRB4, you are advocating a near-similar change away from it except you aren't offering any of the balance because you don't understand how to balance a ruleset. It's a one-way anti-bash sentiment with little-to-no impartial thought or understanding put into it. |
You've totally ignored everything I wrote, and continued with your bias and strong statements without actually qualifying them. We also have to remember that the change to PO was never a tweak; it was an untested major overhaul without foundation. Furthermore, concerns were expressed about PO, which were totally ignored.
If anything, I would say you are too emotional on the issue. I haven't seen anyone else make a disguised emo blog on the subject. Maybe because it'll curb you, more than most people analyzing this thread? There is far too much of a bias on casing with PO on teams. This is not balance.
I clearly said this isn't about win %. It's cas causing %. These need to be redistributed. I also said you're a cas reliant coach, and you do rely on POMBing more than a balanced game should be.
I think (and this is more of a hunch) that cas causing is a little high in CRP, but nothing unbalanced. However how CAS are cause are unbalanced, also on top of this, high POMBing teams tend to rely on an unskillful approach.
Limit PO, then evaluate what impact it has had on the game and then tweak to maintain the balance. Really this is how the whole ruleset should have been tweaked since LRB 4. Rather than a major overhaul without foundation. |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 23:21 |
|
I'm not ignoring everything you wrote, I'm really not. 
I've even dragged you my way a massive amount judging on your last post, at least publicly. You've just admitted that it is nearly balanced as-is with an appropriate number of casualties - but that too many casualties are caused by pombing? (Which doesn't quite make sense, since you advocate nerfing pombing without a counter-nerf, thus unbalancing what you admit is already somewhat balanced.)
Concerns expressed about PO? You mean delusional's nonsensical post which got claw wrong, cites a % which covers stuns and doesn't take into account block dice? Or the general "my pixels" concerns which most of this thread smacks of? I'm not seeing a comparative or statistically formed argument anywhere.
Ok, you think I'm in a bubble as I play ranked. You don't seem to put together that I play mainly bash-based teams and I don't wish to subject people to a good fight unless they want to be in it. I'm advocating the option to avoid my teams outside of tournaments. I don't avoid claw, I don't avoid clawpomb, I turn down very, very few offers.
Blackbox is always going to be slightly broken. Any system in which teams with 1000s of games under their belt sit waiting for teams even with 30 games is going to be problematic - no matter which aspect of the ruleset is easiest to abuse. Before CRP, the problem was dwarves and undead and Blackbox was plagued by them.
Getting a ruleset right is hideously difficult. I don't think PO (or clawpomb by extension) is nearly as broken as everybody envisages it to be. It only takes a small problem to have large effects over 100s+ of games. Buffing +AV and big guys (tough skin) would have a big affect over the long run.
The ironic thing is, I'm not averse to removing piling on. If you came up with a decent set of amendments that addressed balance by making both give- and take- changes, that weren't emotionally charged by a hatred of claw/pomb and thus mostly isolating that from the ruleset and nothing else, it'd be interesting. I'd be up for it. I don't see that. I see a "I hate X" and "let's kill X" witch hunt for a rule hated by pixel huggers. You might find that term offensive, but it is appropriate.
People want to play Blackbox because they want games quickly, but they don't want their teams to get mashed. It might just be a case of you can't have your cake and eat it. Some teams are designed to do damage (chaos, orc, dwarves etc). It's always going to be the case that games against damage-centric teams will be painful. So we want a balance to that pain - I hear you. You have to make it so that, all things considered, bash teams teams stand a reasonable chance against agility teams. Currently evidence suggests it's pretty competitive but agility teams win slightly more. You want to tip that even further towards agility teams without compensating, because you want agility teams to survive better over the long haul.
Is there not a way we can improve how agility teams fair over the long haul without wrecking a bash team's chances against them?
What's the answer? I don't know, really. I'll happily admit that much. That's why I'd rather see minor tweaks instead of ruleset overhauls, but that's my opinion and everybody is entitled to their own. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2014 - 00:46 |
|
Ok I don't really like to 'Dode' posts, but in this case it seems necessary.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | I've even dragged you my way a massive amount judging on your last post, at least publicly. You've just admitted that it is nearly balanced as-is with an appropriate number of casualties |
No you haven't. You're point is that win % with POMBing teams isn't significantly high. I agree, I'd be a fool not to. However that isn't the point. Armour breaks caused by POMBing are too high. This means that the game balance (for being removed from the pitch is a bit high, but nothing to worry about) is ok, but this one skill combo is too prevalent.
I think we could do with a slight decrease in cas caused (however in doing so would mean more reliance on small rosters, so maybe not a good idea) and a more balanced way of causing those cas. PO, is causing too many casualties. Another gripe is that it's easy street or coin toss gaming.
I think I did come up with possible counter nerfs. However, this appears to be the mistake that the BBRC made; getting ahead of themselves. One step at a time. Have a look at what PO on ST 5 or big guys only does, then accommodate changes. As we agree it's all about balance and tweaking, not hunches.
I'm not going to get involved in stats. Those are out there, I think they're pretty conclusive. However stats without the big picture aren't worth diddly. For that you do need 'feel'. That we won't agree on, so it's not worth arguing about. However there is and has been a huge concern about POMBing and as they say 'there's no smoke without fire'.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Ok, you think I'm in a bubble as I play ranked. You don't seem to put together that I play mainly bash-based teams and I don't wish to subject people to a good fight unless they want to be in it. |
Yes, you do. Ranked is a bubble. Also a large part of my argument is based on that you play bash teams (I've mentioned it a couple of times at least) and that you have a heavier reliance on POMBing, than most coaches.
I'd also argue that you do tailor your gaming. Teams that struggle to find games, you play smacks with. You have farmed a large field to ply your trade. This is in no way calling you a picker, or judging your gaming style. I believe one of the great points of Ranked is that you can turn away from teams with dubious builds, and therefore alienate them.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Getting a ruleset right is hideously difficult. I don't think PO (or clawpomb by extension) is nearly as broken as everybody envisages it to be. It only takes a small problem to have large effects over 100s+ of games. Buffing +AV and big guys (tough skin) would have a big affect over the long run. |
I would agree, and possibly it's impossible as different coaches would agree on the perfect ruleset....me and you for instance. However my complaint is why the felt the need to totally re-invent aspects of the game after lrb4. Lrb 4 wasn't far off, and some of the aspects added for lrb 5 onwards were great. Small tweaks to see how simple crp changes affected the rules was the way to go. However although it's refuted I believe TT resurrection played too much of a part in what we have today.
I don't think you're getting, what people think is broken with POMBing. Is it causing an imbalance in win %....not really. It's causing wins by lack of skill, which implies an imbalance and it's seen some extremely powerful high TV Chaos teams run riot. Is PO with MB causing too many casualties and causing an imbalance in the rule set? No, not really. However, are a disproportionate amount of CRP armour breaks coming form POMBing? Yes, most definitely. And this is what needs to be addressed (although this thread isn't really addressing anything as none of us have that power).
The beauty for me, of giving big guys only this skill is that it doesn't tamper with the mechanics; it gives a big guy a much needed boost; and it allows for other avenues for balancing cas causing or armour breaks. If doing this lead to too few cas caused, then we can balance that. However balance it in a way that lead to an even amount of cas caused by skills or combos. Therefor balancing the game better.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | The ironic thing is, I'm not averse to removing piling on. If you came up with a decent set of amendments that addressed balance by making both give- and take- changes, that weren't emotionally charged by a hatred of claw/pomb and thus mostly isolating that from the ruleset and nothing else, it'd be interesting. |
Well my argument is take it step by step. See first what would happen if you did limit it to big guys. Now, a lot of teams just take one POMBer, if you put it on a big guy, there might not be a massive decrease in cas caused.
As I also said, I think that this ruleset has a slightly high amount of cas causing. I don't believe this has any effect on agility teams really, as they run light anyway. However sure, if it causes an imbalance, then we could look at a smarter way of bringing the cas back up.
One idea I'd like to implement (though it complicates the game) is an improved dp on av 8 and lower players. Fluff would need polishing for that though, but possible.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | So we want a balance to that pain - I hear you. You have to make it so that, all things considered, bash teams teams stand a reasonable chance against agility teams. Currently evidence suggests it's pretty competitive but agility teams win slightly more. |
Here, you are doing what you are complaining this thread is doing. Going on a hunch about cause and deducing a reasoning without foundation.
There are several reasons why agility teams win a bit more.
Various causes could be:
1. They have access to POMB too.
2. CPOMBing is though as 'easy street gaming' therefore when coming up against a well built agility team. Easy street gamers with an inflated reputation stand little chance.
3. Too much emphasis is put on making this combo. Remove this, and maybe teams will build to combat agility teams. Tackle is a better tool than PO for combating agility teams, don't you think?
All of these are just as credible as bash teams just can't knock out enough agility players.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Is there not a way we can improve how agility teams fair over the long haul without wrecking a bash team's chances against them? |
There are, certainly. I think (I may have mentioned) is to look at Perms. Too many perms on agility teams result in retirement. This should not be the case as it removes an element.
One thing I do is to give a 50/50 roll on perms. They either stay the same or the player misses more games but heals totally. I will admit though, that overtime this does favour agility teams. But then I don't play with TV. With TV, I doubt it would so much.
Even so, this isn't the issue. It's not about the injuries caused to agility teams; it's the emphasis on this one combo. It's too much, and it's too easy street. Keep it, but in a limited capacity and then......look for something else if needed. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2014 - 00:52 |
|
Here's how you "fix" BB. Remove attrition completely. Dumb everything down so that it's a terrible game. Make it a mobile app.
The vast majority of people who suck at games, have no taste, and play casually love it and therefore it's a success.
Basically just do the same things as movies, music, TV and video games have been doing for ages. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2014 - 01:28 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | Here's how you "fix" BB. Remove attrition completely. Dumb everything down so that it's a terrible game. Make it a mobile app.
The vast majority of people who suck at games, have no taste, and play casually love it and therefore it's a success.
Basically just do the same things as movies, music, TV and video games have been doing for ages. |
I wondered who VoodooMike's other account was.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
