licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 06:23 |
 
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I think there's more to it than that. Your best players will (I can say do, as I'm playing a similar system) get fielded. Just not every drive. How you manage your players and when they play and choosing skills to reflect this, adds another layer of coaching skill. |
This happens to a degree in CRP as well though. I don't think it's really a good idea though, especially if you are specifically building your niche players. That doesn't include natural one turners. I'm really not sure though what other than one turners actually apply. A dedicated passer I guess, but meh, that's a waste of TV even when you do field him 
| harvestmouse wrote: | One of the major complaints that pre LRB5 (and it's my biggest bone with the current rules) is the size of the teams and how games are decided. Teams are playing light, many not having any reserves which means 1 of 2 outcomes.
1. Something goes wrong, players are lost and the game is over fairly quickly.
2. The team handle events and due to the high player skill compared to their opponents (lets say they are playing a larger rostered team) easily win. |
Sure, but we can agree to disagree about what is 'better'. It's really just individual taste, I don't think either system is inherently superior to the other.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | This means lots of games are over by half time with the current ruleset. Hence the term 'coin toss' games. i.e. whomever wins the coin toss, wins the game. |
Other than high TV box this really doesn't seem to be true in my opinion. Yes, more frequently than in other rule sets cpomb spam will obliterate a team in one half and make the game pointless. That's an issue with how the rosters are constructed (it's too easy to spam kill stack), not an issue generally with the rules. Was it really better with more effective dirty player and fouling? It was different, I'm not sure it was better, but again, personal preference.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | However if you played under LRB4 or if you play high TV stunty games now, you can see what Pac is trying to achieve. Games that aren't over, with a disastrous drive. |
Sorry, that's really not true though. You may field 11, but if you're fielding 11 unskilled linemen because your opponent got your positionals then what? It's different, is it really 'better' though? You can look at his rosters and realize that if you take out the good positionals in the 1st drive then the game is probably decided anyway. Those linemen are unlikely to get the job done. Sure, it's not 11 cpomb killers vs. an ever decreasing set of opposing players. I agree, it's different, but I'm not convinced it's actually 'better'. Especially since he wants to rebuff fouling. Which is fine really, but it seemingly leads back to the consequences you had in the past anyway. Big bench is great, means more fouls!
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Paying for your best 11 only, would mean that rosters are large, with 'some' specialized players. It also means that it is in your best interest to skill players outside of the top 11. Also meaning that teams are much more rounded than they are now, where we have different takes on the 'rule of 5'. 5 protected players, 6 players to do the protecting. In theory you want the 5 to be where all the skill is placed. If some of these 5 get removed, essentially the game is over. |
But the linemen (other than elfs, who also have freaking dirt cheap linemen) are terrible. Who cares if you skill them with block and fend or whatever. They are not bloat anymore, but they don't really add value either. Other than for dirty player spam, which is likely what you would see. I still think you have rule of 'whatever' with these roster. Just look at the dwarfs and tell me how they score as their faster/agile players are removed? Then look at elfs and tell me who stops them with those positionals and the linemen? The rosters need to fit the rules to a degree at least.
| harvestmouse wrote: | The problem with this system is the price and skill of the players outside of the top 11. So let's say linemen. An Elven lineman has more worth than a human lineman; so the elves have a distinct advantage they are not paying for.
Pac counters this by saying the rosters are not meant to be equal. |
Saying the rosters are not meant to be equal is a bogus cop out, and that's not what he said at all either, he said sea elfs wouldn't do well because they'd get 'destroyed' by undead.
I can tell you from these 4 rosters that dwarfs will be utter trash and elfs will run rings around everyone. Orcs and Humans are just excercises in whatever fluff he wants to redo to suit his fancy.
It's not a coherent or consistent approach to actually building a new rule set or new rosters.
It's literally just crap he's throwing at the wall because he has a boner for some other era in WFB. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 07:10 |
|
| licker wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | I think there's more to it than that. Your best players will (I can say do, as I'm playing a similar system) get fielded. Just not every drive. How you manage your players and when they play and choosing skills to reflect this, adds another layer of coaching skill. |
This happens to a degree in CRP as well though. I don't think it's really a good idea though, especially if you are specifically building your niche players. That doesn't include natural one turners. I'm really not sure though what other than one turners actually apply. A dedicated passer I guess, but meh, that's a waste of TV even when you do field him |
There's plenty, and we would find more combos if everybody played under this system. Elves would be able to build teams of ball sackers. Strip ball/leap/tacklers with leap/dt/ss players.
Kickers possibly that take pass block specially for teams that throw. Fend players to keep free on offence to keep the ball moving.
However it's a small point, and doesn't really make or break the system.
| licker wrote: | | Sure, but we can agree to disagree about what is 'better'. It's really just individual taste, I don't think either system is inherently superior to the other. |
How can having a game essentially finished early due to the removal of players or being totally outplayed be better? Having deep rosters with an even playing field on how you build to TV, rather than 1 team taking it's chances with a smaller roster isn't even an argument to me.
Playing a large roster and losing or winning against a small roster of the same TV feels cheap to me. Either they beat you with skills on the pitch, or you beat them by removing their key figures. Neither feels like an even game.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | This means lots of games are over by half time with the current ruleset. Hence the term 'coin toss' games. i.e. whomever wins the coin toss, wins the game. |
| licker wrote: | | Other than high TV box this really doesn't seem to be true in my opinion. Yes, more frequently than in other rule sets cpomb spam will obliterate a team in one half and make the game pointless. That's an issue with how the rosters are constructed (it's too easy to spam kill stack), not an issue generally with the rules. Was it really better with more effective dirty player and fouling? It was different, I'm not sure it was better, but again, personal preference. |
I don't think it's just a CPOMB thing, it's a TV management thing too. I also don't think CPOMB is a roster construction problem, it's a rule problem. Something pointed out and ignored. It's the whole CRP thing; eggs all in one basket. With that combo being too many eggs in that basket when it comes to attrition.
It may well be a personal thing. However I feel the big leagues played much better under 4. It could be now that this is a dead idea. In which case Pac is behind the times and trying to raise the dead. This whole train crash of a topic is generally high lighting that, and something I've also kind of felt.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | However if you played under LRB4 or if you play high TV stunty games now, you can see what Pac is trying to achieve. Games that aren't over, with a disastrous drive. |
| licker wrote: | | Sorry, that's really not true though. You may field 11, but if you're fielding 11 unskilled linemen because your opponent got your positionals then what? It's different, is it really 'better' though? |
I'll counter by saying "yes it is true". It's how I play the game. Ok, you aren't going to come back everytime, but you have a chance....more of a chance than playing a small roster.
As I pointed out the idea is to build a team of 20 where you can compete under any scenario. We also talked about playing specialist teams, so possibly you have specialist on the bench for that offensive drive.........indeed I hope you would. It could be you only really had DPs, in which case you know your strategy. It could be due to bad management (then that is your fault) you only have linemen even vanilla.......however even with just vanilla linemen you have a chance. 50% block linos then an ok one.
| licker wrote: | | You can look at his rosters and realize that if you take out the good positionals in the 1st drive then the game is probably decided anyway. |
You're thinking with your CRP hat on. You probably wouldn't field all your best positionals. Not your catchers or throwing staff for example. And numbers can make a difference, they really can. I often have disastrous first drives with my 16 man Pygmy team and come back and scrape a draw with a second string. I did it all the time in LRB4 with my Norse. And I see it in lots of games in my own personal league. If you have the players you always stand a chance of making a game of it. You get in 4 hits before they have a chance to hit back and from that it may give you the advantage.
| licker wrote: | | Which is fine really, but it seemingly leads back to the consequences you had in the past anyway. Big bench is great, means more fouls! |
With the eye, the best coaches fouling averages was amazingly similar. Just above or below 3 per game. Different rosters would foul different rates, which if anything could bring that elf roster more into line with the others (I'm using lrb4 fouling and it hasn't for me), I'm thinking Pac is thinking that. So.......I don't think it will make a massive different to outcomes, however it would add another layer of tactics.
| licker wrote: | | But the linemen (other than elfs, who also have freaking dirt cheap linemen) are terrible. Who cares if you skill them with block and fend or whatever. |
If you manage your game it shouldn't come to that. However if it did, you can do amazing things with 11 block/fend (a bit of sure hand, tackle, dp) players. Playing Norse has taught me that and BGhandras said something similar recently. Stopping such an offence isn't a foregone conclusion. You probably would.........but also they'd probably make a game of it.
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Pac counters this by saying the rosters are not meant to be equal. |
| licker wrote: | | Saying the rosters are not meant to be equal is a bogus cop out, and that's not what he said at all either. |
I'm pretty sure he did say that........where in these 12 or so pages I'm not sure.......but I remember it. Also it's been the GW way that rosters are not meant to be equal. Saying that how they are constructed suggests they should be equal, as they are rounded rosters.
| licker wrote: | | elfs will run rings around everyone. |
You get no argument from me there, I totally agree. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 07:31 |
|
It just seems that filling a bench with linemen (for some teams) only means that you'll have 11 scrubs on the pitch.
They still won't do much, because they still aren't very good, and skilling them at the expense of what exactly?
Playing your 'best' players on every drive? I understand specialist though, I play in leagues where they have a role because the TV is artificially inflated. They still need to see the pitch offense or defense (other than natural one turners, but to me they are a large exception). Because generally you have need for their skills no matter offense or defense.
Fine, niche situations exist, like turn 8 or 16, and maybe you don't use your kicker other than to kick, but meh, that's not really changing much now is it?
So the game changes from how it is now (which is still debatable just how bad the situation is if you don't jump into high TV box), to games where the pitch is full of line men.
Honestly? That doesn't really appeal to me, but as I've been saying, that doesn't make it good or bad, it just makes it different. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 07:49 |
|
Funnily I've just finished a game where 11 Dwarf longbeards almost held on for a draw against the top of the division Tilean team that got cocky. The important thing though it was a contest right until the end, and if you have players later in the game, there's more chance of that happening.
When we had aging in LRB4, teams tried to spread the spp around. This made for much more rounded rosters and more likely a team could stay competitive deeper in the game. This happened compared to now (well it happened more).
I'm guessing Pac wants that to return, but avoid the pitfalls of 4 (like the effective but negative aging).
3 of the 4 rosters now have catchers. The trend at the moment (well for a long time) is to build catchers defensively. However if you built them offensively then you would not see them on defensive drives. Nor would you see the throwers. There's an offensive game right there. Plus 50% of your linos having some skills. Even if you lost all your S access players on the defensive drive you have a team, you have a chance.........and I guess that's the idea behind these rounded rosters.
I do agree with your opinion on the rosters. Another piece of feedback is some of my rosters have these Dwarf Linemen and the teams are struggling compared to teams that have Longbeards.
Generally though, I don't foresee many games where a team is reduced to just linemen. However if you manage your roster well, it's not necessarily the end of the game.....and that's got to be a good thing. Nobody likes it when things end prematurely.........just ask the female members........if we had any left. |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 08:38 |
|
| Quote: | | The problem with this system is the price and skill of the players outside of the top 11. So let's say linemen. An Elven lineman has more worth than a human lineman; so the elves have a distinct advantage they are not paying for. |
I'd say it favours cheaper low-AV teams that tend to play through injuries in the second half, or that already carry a bench for fouling. Elves as such have trouble maintaining 11 permanent players in competitive environments, maybe Dark Elves, but Dwarves don't even need them. It'd be handy for stunties, Norse, Zons, Vamps, Khemri, and so on.
Humans and the like it would allow you to run more catchers on offence without having to run them all on D, and cover the games where your linemen get knocked around early. +60k to run 3 more catchers rather than +210k. Orcs could carry a few Goblins for 1-turn tries or SS/DT vs faster teams without blowing out the TV, Rats could sometimes run enough bench to protect the gutters for the whole game.
But that's the current rosters, adding a bunch of 0-2 positions to all the rosters, who knows, a bunch of them will turn out to be useless and not taken, others will suck up all the skill points and become the new legend focus of the teams.
Small changes, test 'em, more small changes, test 'em again, that's how you change rules for an older game. Huge re-writes like this, you just can't see how the changes interact.
It took a very long time to turn 3rd edition into a game that's stable enough but still allows new teams to come through and old ones to slip back in long term leagues. You get good runs, you lose key players, you rebuild, you get another good run, it's cool. Undead used to be miles better than everyone, the fouling was insane, there was only a dozen teams, big chaos teams completely wrecked everything else, ... it's much better now. |
_________________
  |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 08:39 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Generally though, I don't foresee many games where a team is reduced to just linemen. However if you manage your roster well, it's not necessarily the end of the game.....and that's got to be a good thing. Nobody likes it when things end prematurely.........just ask the female members........if we had any left. |
I still think the notion that CRP games end prematurely is overblown.
Yes it happens, but it tends to only happen in extreme dicings (which nothing can really fix) or for high TV killstack spam nonsense, which again, is an artifact of B more than anything else at the moment.
Fat bench and more powerful fouls... that's what this is tending towards. Eye or no eye, when you have a 9 man bench you take that trade. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 09:50 |
|
Well, the proposal here is far from perfect. But i do agree that CRP games end prematurely. There is a great chance for an early CAS, and the game tends to snowball easily. |
_________________
 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 11:42 |
|
| pac wrote: | | mdd31 wrote: | | Fumbbl does not need to be "revitalized". |
Yes, it does.
It is in a very sad, dead state. Just look at IRC, where no one talks at all any more. 
|
Yes, that's a pity. As someone who was actually here when that happened, I can tell you what triggered it: the 'new' gamefinder. I used to be in #fumbbl all the time. As soon as the gamefinder went live, it got more and more quiet, as people didn't need to go there anymore. Now I basically only go on irc when I need something handled in #fumbbladmin. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 11:54 |
|
Why are you the number 8 hit for anything on FUMBBL, according to google search? Very worrying.
I think the new GameFinder was Christer's response to IRC dying. The site Java one stopped working, a couple of the others had problems with java updates (I know mine did) and I believe there was no longer a free option for Mac users (or a reliable one at least).
So with IRC waning away, Christer elected to revolutionise the match making procedure. Of course once he did that, that was the final nail for poor old IRC.
Probably Lizvis also deserves a lot of credit, he did his best to kill it off too. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 11:57 |
|
This does look more and more like a custom league ruleset than something that is good for ranked/box type enviroments. Something that might be fun to play a game every week but not to be the core blood bowl experiance. I love the the different leagues I play and have played. I would not want any of them to be the only way to play though. This feels like that, a custom league somebody is pushing to be the only way to play. I don't feel it improves on CRP in the areas that matter. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 14:25 |
|
| pac wrote: |
What are the rules!? Can't you post everything right now?
No, this will come together piece by piece and a lot of constituencies will want to have their say …
The core of the rules are the third edition ones you are used to.
I found something overpowered or unbalanced!
Did you? Did you actually play a match or even put together an actual roster?
This isn't Starcraft, with three sides meant to be evenly matched against one another, while at the same time being very different in how they play. Some Blood Bowl rosters are just better than others. The Reikland Reavers would like it very much if Humans are overpowered, you know?
|
With that premise i think it would help if you told people for what kind of feedback you are looking for and what direction you d like to go in terms of balancing/keeping it tactically or just introduce more moments of mad fun - if you want feedback/suggestions from the community.
People can usually make assumptions on how balanced the rosters will be - but if balance is not a priority or it is not clear for what teams, they cant. Personally, e.g., i am fine with Goblins and Halflings being underpowered - they are just crazy fun teams - but i feel like "classic" races like dwarves, orcs elves and humans should be similar in power level (unnerf humans 2516!!!).
Alsio it would be good to know how much community involvement you want - if you want a fumbbl wide strive for the project or at least some m ore people to join in (and yes, people pointed out christer said he ll will stick with GW rules, but it could be implemented in league for those who are in) i suggest having a look at the communities other trys at this, if only for comparison if you want to go into the same direction. If you want to put forward your own BB rules, perfect for you, thtas fine, but then it would be good to tell people in what kind of feedback you are interested or if you are interested at all to include other ideas (maybe for fun players, new roster or...) |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 14:53 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | This means lots of games are over by half time with the current ruleset. Hence the term 'coin toss' games. i.e. whomever wins the coin toss, wins the game. |
This is precisely what I dislike so much about Piling Awn. Its not that it kills pixels, it's that it's changed the high TV game from being an interesting, tactical boxing match into a dull 'game' of roshambo ..
But let's not turn this into a cpomb-bashing thread (then it'll definitely get locked) |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 17, 2016 - 15:58 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Probably Lizvis also deserves a lot of credit, he did his best to kill it off too. |
Yes this, him and his homies constantly comparing size and bullying other coaches pushed me out. Now i just hang in SWL chat and have a laugh there. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 18, 2016 - 13:37 |
|
Probably I will pause a bit before posting more of the project here. Perhaps the people who like to deluge everything fun with their crap will get distracted and we'll be able to continue to get on with making a fun game more fun in peace.
More likely not. It will ping their radars again and they will thank their lucky stars that shadow46x2 isn't in charge around here and they are allowed to get away with personal attacks.
But I digress.
Here's a good article on dealing with shit posters: http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-i-deal-with-harassment-abuse-and.html |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 18, 2016 - 13:38 |
|
| Bobs wrote: | | Yes this, him and his homies constantly comparing size and bullying other coaches pushed me out. Now i just hang in SWL chat and have a laugh there. |
Glad to hear SWL is still a going concern. The White Isle League was my main achievement on this site, but it would never have been possible without the Southern Wastes League existing as a model to follow.
*a whinging pom offers a long-distance high-five* |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
