easilyamused
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
|
 Posted:
Apr 19, 2016 - 23:04 |
 
|
| pac wrote: | | The_Murker wrote: | | Make the 2 blockers MA 5 ST 4 AG 3 AV 8. Give the humies a little strength to be used tactically. STRONG humans are rare but not unheard of. But humans arn't orks, and AV9 seems too much. Offensive linemen arn't less breakable than the other players on an NFL team. |
I really think giving Humans some AV 9 is important. Third edition Humans end up being too much like elves with sucky agility.
ST 4 and AG 3 is *way* too good! That's an underarmoured Chaos Warrior. Also, ST 4 usually implies a different (sub-)species in the third edition era. I'm not sure that should be available for Humans (who will get a broad choice of Big Guys, when we get round to thinking about them).
As I've written them, Human Blockers are really tough, and should have a great upgrade path (Guard, etc — plus don't forget the new Distract skill, a classic choice for Blockers!). But they really lack flexibility and mobility. OTOH, once you've built up a nice deep bench (which won't affect your TR if that's based only on the first XI …) you should be spoilt for choice. 
Think of a developed sixth edition team as being like a really good Championship/Football Manager team — lots of tools in the box. No real penalty for having far more quality players than you actually need or regularly use.
At the strategic level, between matches, coaching/management is no longer about maintaining your side as a lean, streamlined machine. There's room for special play experts in the squad and all kinds of oddities.
But, on Blockers, I'm very open to the opinions of long-time Human coaches, as I'm sure a lot of them have been *really* missing this option, as it gives them a hell of a lot of bash potential again at last! |
Any chance you can do this kind of analysis for all the rosters you have done? This adds valuable information and context. |
_________________
 |
|
FTJUK
Joined: Jun 10, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 19, 2016 - 23:04 |
|
| Quote: | | I don't trash everything. I say that I am going to make BB and FUMBBL cooler and more fun for everyone. But no one likes fun any more, so I get attacked. |
Pac, these sorts of comments is why you are getting most players back up! Most people are more than happy with how the game plays bar a few tweaks to some skills.
I was quite interested with what you are trying to do based on your past history and the amount of work you have done on tips and tactics in the forum. However, the only meaningful momentum you have got on your discussions is snipes back and forth with the community you think needs saving. Unfortunately it has taken away a lot of interest (certainly mine), which is a shame. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 19, 2016 - 23:33 |
|
| pac wrote: | | bghandras wrote: | | 3. I would not mind having so many positionals on the teams, but in order to acheive ACTUAL VARIETY, you need to be spot on with prices. The weak options will be never used. If there are 1-2-3 great positionals, the rest wont be used. Again, pricing is critical, and you should not sit back at historical prices, but should look hard at minmaxing teams in the box, and price accordingly, to make the positionals equally useful on any given roster. (Or at least for the options you REALLY like to promote.) |
Oh sure. Making almost all the Sea Elf positionals 100K is very much a first draft. That is certainly open to change. But there's no basis for doing that until/unless we see these rosters in action. |
There is tremendeous information source to sort out most of those things even without playing, like
- bbox datas
- coaches who spent time on such rule variants
- some common sense which positionals got used often, which not (i am looking at the dark elf assasin as one example)
- casual draft excercises when positionals were drafted (early round picks are best value, etc)
Use those, you can save a lot of criticism if you use only half of that. |
_________________
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 00:18 |
|
| easilyamused wrote: | | People have pointed out flaws in the rosters and asked questions but without any kind of rules to put the rosters into context these questions will keep coming. My suggestion would be to get together a draft version of the rules so that the rosters start to make sense. |
Relax, man. This is a process. Everything will come into focus in time if you are patient. =)
| Quote: | | No-one is attacking you, no-one has insulted you. |
Actually, several people have. Check the other thread, please. |
_________________
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 20, 2016 - 00:21 |
|
| FTJUK wrote: | | Pac, these sorts of comments is why you are getting most players back up! Most people are more than happy with how the game plays bar a few tweaks to some skills. |
That's lovely, but you can just ignore the thread, you know?
There are no problems with the current rules set that demand immediate fixing (hamstrung WE Catchers aside, that is). The third edition era has seen a nicely streamlined game, for the most part, but second edition? You needed to be there. So many wonderful features that have been ironed out over time … <3
But we can bring back the best of it while keeping things running smoothly (if we have the site and client providing automation especially). |
_________________
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 20, 2016 - 00:23 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | There is tremendeous information source to sort out most of those things even without playing, like
- bbox datas
- coaches who spent time on such rule variants
- some common sense which positionals got used often, which not (i am looking at the dark elf assasin as one example)
- casual draft excercises when positionals were drafted (early round picks are best value, etc)
Use those, you can save a lot of criticism if you use only half of that. |
Sorry, you're going to have to be clearer about this.
Sea Elves are a completely new roster. The only way to test them is to play with them, surely.
New rosters are meant to be exciting, intriguing, strange and cool. Getting bogged down in how they would end up if they were min-maxed to the nth degree is the death of enjoyable design work. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 00:43 |
|
| pac wrote: |
Sea Elves are a completely new roster. The only way to test them is to play with them, surely. |
Um, no, people who understand how BB works can look at a roster and tell you immediately what parts of it are 'unbalanced'. Since you don't seem to be able to do this I think we should assume you don't understand how BB works.
Well maybe you do, that is understand how your version works. Pity then that you still haven't shared how your version works so no one really has any idea why you say completely ridiculous things about your rosters. There's no context.
| pac wrote: | | New rosters are meant to be exciting, intriguing, strange and cool. Getting bogged down in how they would end up if they were min-maxed to the nth degree is the death of enjoyable design work. |
Well if this is just a design party have fun. If you actually intend for everyone to be forced to play these abortions of rosters then yes, the analysis does matter, because eventually, people who care about winning will take advantage of the imbalances in your design.
Now, you'll continue to ignore me, which is fine, I really don't care if you don't want solid and accurate feedback. Makes it more fun to see you flounder around with your ideas.
And yeah, that's not a personal attack either. It's just an accurate observation. |
|
|
pokrjax
Joined: Dec 01, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 00:45 |
|
| pac wrote: | | New rosters are meant to be exciting, intriguing, strange and cool. Getting bogged down in how they would end up if they were min-maxed to the nth degree is the death of enjoyable design work. |
So you wouldn't stress test a new machine part etc. you designed if you were an engineer? |
|
|
Jim_Fear
Joined: May 02, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 00:59 |
|
If anyone was after some very early impericial data on these new rosters, there's always the Fumbbl Test Mode... |
_________________
 |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 01:04 |
|
@Pac
Well, if we are going to harken back to the past editions to make a new FUMBBL LRB, then why not allow every roster to have a 0-1 lino with a Chainsaw and a 7+ ejection roll?
(In 2ED every team could, we will call it induce, a Chainsaw, a death roller, bombers, ball and chains and any other form of mayhem that you could imagine and your comish would allow)
I agree with licker. Roster discussions, in the void, of not knowing what the rules changes to the core rules of CRP are, is, well, pointless.
Pointless because the core rules of TV/TR, changing up skills, team construction and so forth are the most important aspects of comparison of team rosters of CRP compared to your proposed team lists. You are asking coaches to accept your roster changes as good BUT it is only good if the "core" rules of your new rule book support it.
my 2 cents |
_________________
Comish of the: 
Last edited by PainState on %b %20, %2016 - %01:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 01:07 |
|
| Jim_Fear wrote: | | If anyone was after some very early impericial data on these new rosters, there's always the Fumbbl Test Mode... |
That would require doing actual work though.
Pac is only interested in design. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 01:27 |
|
| licker wrote: |
That would require doing actual work though.
Pac is only interested in design. |
Lets just "come clean". IF at any point in the future Christer allowed a FUMBBL-LRB discussion, with the chance of it getting applied, well, it would require coaches to participate in a "test" div that could last months, maybe, up to a year.
That would require ALL coaches on FUMBBL to "care", "participate" and "actually move to make a change".
My jaded side says, the vast majority of coaches could care less and just drone on and on about "official rules" and so forth. The classic let other people decide for me what is going to happen to make positive change. On one condition of course, I do not have to lift a finger or even move, yet they scream to the heavens that change SUCKS. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 01:48 |
|
Yes, yes.. but did we all agree to have at least two Strength 4 humans? I simply can't stay tuned to hear any more about this hypothetical ruleset if it's going to be a world that dosn't include big, big, humans. Do we get two, or can I go now? |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 02:46 |
|
Gotta start with the rules. The rosters are the sexy bit, but they are not the foundation of the game. I'm keen to see some new rule suggestions, then I would look at the rosters after. |
_________________
 |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2016 - 03:12 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | licker wrote: |
That would require doing actual work though.
Pac is only interested in design. |
Lets just "come clean". IF at any point in the future Christer allowed a FUMBBL-LRB discussion, with the chance of it getting applied, well, it would require coaches to participate in a "test" div that could last months, maybe, up to a year.
That would require ALL coaches on FUMBBL to "care", "participate" and "actually move to make a change".
My jaded side says, the vast majority of coaches could care less and just drone on and on about "official rules" and so forth. The classic let other people decide for me what is going to happen to make positive change. On one condition of course, I do not have to lift a finger or even move, yet they scream to the heavens that change SUCKS. |
Well these 'changes' do suck, objectively based on the information we have available.
Don't even need to do any testing to know that.
But it's not on anyone other than person suggesting the changes to do the testing anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
