harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:35 |
 
|
@Endzone How would skill price changes affect either stalling or minmaxing? If you change the price of core skills Norse and Zons dominate even more at low TV.
| Endzone wrote: | It would help address min-maxing, not stalling. Min -maxing, under CRP, is mostly about maximising select skills on select players within a given TV. Fewer of these select skills would be possible within a given TV thus helping to address the problem. Coaches could still min-max, but if the various options available to a coach for a given TV were of similar in game value then this would be more about fine tuning an not have the impact it does now.
The TV cost of core skills would also need to be addressed in rosters, this would need to be done with care but as a starting point Norse and Amazon Linewomen could be priced at 60K.
I am not saying this increase in TV cost for core skills is a compete solution to min-maxing, but it could be a very simple way of making a significant difference. |
Sorry, my wording was poor. I should have wrote "How would skill price changes affect either stalling or utilizing the bench if you have the funds?"
I can actually see your point, but it opens more problems. If (particularly Norse) were 60k linemen, what happens to them at high TV?
I think it would mean that cookie cutter team coaches (cookie cutter rosters being the block/dodge theme Norse/Zons) would be more picky about what players they took and try to have less excess.
The cookie cutter rosters are always problematic. I think what you are describing is a sort of TS. I feel this is the way to go with resurrection. It's silly picking skills that are all the same price, when their worth is not the same.
However for perpetual big is best has to be best. |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %19, %2016 - %12:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
TV - It's not how big it is, it's how you use it.
Why is/should bigger be better?
Frankly that idea is all a little last millennium. And for you to define it as the preferred route/goal for the game is more than a little offensive, as it limits others in what they can decide their gaming goal is.
I also do not accept it is as counter-intuitive as you claim for newer players coming into BB from other fantasy games. BB is far from the only fantasy game to revolve around bang for buck. Ever spent points on an army/warband/fleet? Best use (minmax) those points effectively, or you will lose.
And finally, look you started this so it's your own fault.......(cant believe you are making me do this)
you went to sports, you basically said its bloodBOWL.
Fine.
It is also BLOODbowl.
It is supposed to be a hybrid between combat and sports, the fluff has always supported the idea that BB replaced war. You cannot just endlessly cite RL sports and not look at RL war.
When the allies fought Hitler (yes, i went there, ironicly) back to germany. they didn't 'take the points, reset and let him have another go, this time maybe not opening up the eastern front'. no, they hung around and finished him off.
Similarly my orcs will hang around and try to finish you off. Not just take the td and reset.
Was WWII due to a lack of stalling in WWI? |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:43 |
|
We know block is worth 30K because what do most coaches do when a player who doesn't have access to general skills rolls a double? Usually they give him block for 30K. You could also argue block is worth 40K. Think of the typical starting roster for amazon. 4 blitzers, why? A blitzer is a linewoman with block for 40K (to start with). If block isn't worth 40K then why do teams choose 4 blitzers to start? Answer: because there is nothing better to spend the starting money on, so in that initial team build scenario block is worth 40K. The issue comes later when amazon linewomen get block for just 20K and have blitzer starting stats for 70K, not 90K. this clumsy pricing positively encourages min-maxing. If amazon linewomen cost 60K and block cost 30K this would not be an issue.
Preventing 'unwanted' min maxing is about all the resources available being reasonably priced. If some resources (like core skills) are much better value than others the coaches will be drawn towards them and in a TV matching environment coaches will be drawn away from those resources that bloat TV. The rules / mechanics drive the behaviour.
If you are an advocate of coaches playing with more rerolls, more subs, more positionals, more cheer leaders, more coaching assistants, and apothcary and more +stats in a TV matching environment then be an advocate of those resources being priced competitively compared to core skills. The simplest way to do this is increase the cost of core skills)
Whilst the skill cost change would be welcome(in my opinion) I do appreciate it is not the whole answer. Mostly this would balance things better at low-mid TV, at higher TV amazon for example are less competitive, so the extra cost of their linewomen would hurt them (thus encouraging them to keep their TV low) so my proposed solution is only a piece of the puzzle. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:47 |
|
HM wrote "However for perpetual big is best has to be best." I disagree with this. When I started on Fumbbl I thought the only goal for a team to be 'successful' was to have high TV and maybe one day do well in a major. This is one approach but Fummbl is a sandbox environment. Coaches set their own goals. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:52 |
|
| Quote: |
We know block is worth 30K because what do most coaches do when a player who doesn't have access to general skills rolls a double? Usually they give him block for 30K. You could also argue block is worth 40K |
You argue that we "know" block is worth 30k then state it could be 40k! The problem with this approach is that it is entirely approximate and subjective. By taking the performance-metric approach we know how much the team as played by that coach is worth (relative to other teams, which is all that matters) because we can look at their win rates and compare them. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:04 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | HM wrote "However for perpetual big is best has to be best." I disagree with this. When I started on Fumbbl I thought the only goal for a team to be 'successful' was to have high TV and maybe one day do well in a major. This is one approach but Fummbl is a sandbox environment. Coaches set their own goals. |
This is the basic "problem" (I actually don't think it is one). There's no unified goal here, no central over-arching, game defining, coach agreed upon, end point.
Btw, block is worth 50tv when people pass over +ST for it on a big guy 
Dode: how would your formula affect a team like this? https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=712922 |
_________________
 |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:08 |
|
No time to read these walls of text, so if it hasn't been mentioned 2nd Ed. Allowed in game substitutes. If I remember correctly there was a special 'substitutes' box on each sideline & you could, at the start of your turn, put players there. Not sure if you had to wait to move them on pitch until next turn, but this used to exist.
My question is, if this were to make a comeback would it be part of a solution to CLAWBOMB as well as making carrying a bench more common 
And if not, what problems 'could' it potentially solve |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
Last edited by Nightbird on %b %19, %2016 - %13:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:10 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: |
We know block is worth 30K because what do most coaches do when a player who doesn't have access to general skills rolls a double? Usually they give him block for 30K. You could also argue block is worth 40K |
You argue that we "know" block is worth 30k then state it could be 40k! The problem with this approach is that it is entirely approximate and subjective. By taking the performance-metric approach we know how much the team as played by that coach is worth (relative to other teams, which is all that matters) because we can look at their win rates and compare them. |
I'm not really sure I like the idea of handicapping based on team performance. It sounds a bit like you're trying to punish success - would this lead to some sort of BB communism, where every team trends over time towards a 50:50 win/loss record?
Would we see more coaches spam-gangfouling or implementing other forms of less-competitive meta-gaming, because they know the handicapping will help them out anyway?
Although, one other possible upside is that it would help punish cherrypicking in [R]anked .. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:22 |
|
HM wrote "Sorry, my wording was poor. I should have wrote "How would skill price changes affect either stalling or utilizing the bench if you have the funds?"
I can actually see your point, but it opens more problems. If (particularly Norse) were 60k linemen, what happens to them at high TV?
I think it would mean that cookie cutter team coaches (cookie cutter rosters being the block/dodge theme Norse/Zons) would be more picky about what players they took and try to have less excess.
The cookie cutter rosters are always problematic. I think what you are describing is a sort of TS. I feel this is the way to go with resurrection. It's silly picking skills that are all the same price, when their worth is not the same."
Having players on the bench is a useful resource, however, in a TV matching environment that is not enough for every coach, some coaches will want(reasonably I would argue) for that resource to be TV costed reasonably (value for money if you will). If the core cost of skills were increased there would be a point at which the best value resource available would be something other than more skills - such as the extra player on the bench. Take this too far and we would be having threads about min maxing where coaches were 'abusing the scheduler' by having an unfair depth of bench on such a low TV team. But the point is, if the cost of the extra player is small enough compared to other resources it will become more attractive to have.
I do agree increasing the cost of Norse / Amazon line(wo)men would make the teams less competitive at higher TV so potentially we would want to find ways of offsetting this.
I agree that increasing the cost of Norse / Amazon linewomen would mean less starting money for other resources, at low TV this would help balance them because they are overpowered, for higher TV the current solution of making them overpowered at low TV doesn't work so if we want to address this we need a different solution.
If linemen are not the best value resource in a team then coaches are more inclined to buy positionals. In my opinion the ideal roster makes positionals just worth it so coaches want them even if they are TV power gaming, but just close enough that it leaves room for creativity and non cookie cutter builds.
The bottom line is that if the cost of the various resources was more balanced we wouldn't talk about min maxing so much because it wouldn't be such an issue, we would just talk about 'good builds'. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:24 |
|
dode74 wrote "You argue that we "know" block is worth 30k then state it could be 40k!"
My mistake, please read as 'at least 30K'. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:30 |
|
What about giving a TV discount for having a bench as an incentive? Given that those players aren't going to be playing a full game anyway. For example, each player over 11 reduces TV cost by 20k? |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:35 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | You could also argue block is worth 40K. Think of the typical starting roster for amazon. 4 blitzers, why? A blitzer is a linewoman with block for 40K (to start with). If block isn't worth 40K then why do teams choose 4 blitzers to start? Answer: because there is nothing better to spend the starting money on, so in that initial team build scenario block is worth 40K. |
*cough* S access *cough*
Sorry, had to clear my throat, somebody blowing smoke into the air. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:35 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | What about giving a TV discount for having a bench as an incentive? Given that those players aren't going to be playing a full game anyway. For example, each player over 11 reduces TV cost by 20k? |
Free snotlings for Ogres! Sounds good to me. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:40 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | What about giving a TV discount for having a bench as an incentive? Given that those players aren't going to be playing a full game anyway. For example, each player over 11 reduces TV cost by 20k? |
Yes, that could work, however, relative to most other resources linemen are probably priced about right. (The choice between a 12 or 13th player, an apothecary and an extra reroll is quite well balanced) The resource that appears to be out of line is the core skill for 20K. (It is easy to see Block, Mighty Blow and Claw on a beastman for 60K is much better than the extra player for example) |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:46 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | What about giving a TV discount for having a bench as an incentive? Given that those players aren't going to be playing a full game anyway. For example, each player over 11 reduces TV cost by 20k? |
Free snotlings for Ogres! Sounds good to me. |
Well the cost of stuntie players is too high, but then those teams have been deliberately designed to be more of a challenge is that is perhaps slightly different. IMO it would be fairer to price Goblins at 30K, halflings at 20K and snotlings at 10K but that I really for the stuntie community to comment on - they may well prefer for the challenge not to be diluted. |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season 100!
Search
