Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
 Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 19:41 |
 
|
Aaaaaaaaaalllrighty then! I love answering questions especially blood bowl questions!
So lets go!
1. I think the d6 system is simple and good, almost perfect.
In games things need to be simple, it doesnt mean the game itself is that simple.
So no, I don't belive bb would benefit both from being less or more random.
2. Not sure, I think inducement is broken as it is now.
maybe inducements should be cheaper, thats what I "feel" anyway.
3.Its too good, thats the problem, it needs to be nerfed!
4.hard to answer, in the old rules there were 7 skills for legend, -1 was a dissapointment,
I like versatility, attrition could be higher, but ageing was stupid, so is cyanides soulution of player retirement,
altough its actually better than ageing.
otherwise, CPOMB attrition is too high.
disregarding CPOMB the rest is about ok, but might be tweaked higher..
5.neither or maybe flawed, minmax being the problem
6.Good or flawed, it needs some improvement. I never seem have problem with money, not sure why.. others have huge problems.
7.FF is worth its TV, winning kickoff results wins you more games.
8.Their cost is not correct, but they should be priced more than their abilities for
being _starplayers_ if you compare it to an equal player with equal skills, unless a death by starplayer means the team can't hire him/her/it anymore.
Still they should be priced more for being starplayers, though maybe not as much..
Right now, I think they cost too much, but it all depends upon the new system right?
9.Balance is key, teams should strive for balance, but not at the expense of fluff or fun,
witch is more important than balance.
10.faster play, you mean less stalling? not sure how to "fix" it as it is a tactical aspect rather
than a strategic one. Not sure.
11.the game would benefit a little I guess..but I wouldn't put much effort in changing it, unless someone says something brilliant suddenly.
12.NO! NO! best never bring it back, or ill be sick.
You can't make a team based upon only luck, the luckiest get the best teams, the others have to start over..
13.encouraged, weapons can be added as skills too, if it can be balanced, or secret weapons nega-trait could be removed at the cost of extra team upkeep.
14.Not sure about wiz.. see what I think of inducements in general
15.Yes, more options means more versatility.
16.it is about right, it could always be tweaked. |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 19:50 |
|
5 + 12 )Here's an idea I pulled out of my butt: How about making spiralling expenses relate directly to experienced players and not to TV. Example (to show the concept, balancing is needed): Let's say players cost 10k to play a game when they pass 76spp and 20k when passing 176spp. If you can't afford it, then they might leave.
Haven't really thought it through, just throwing it out there |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I think there was a very similar system in some of the older LRBs Shraaaag. Not sure how it worked out though as never got that high in my tabletop leagues  |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 20:26 |
|
1. I think the current amount of randomness is part of the game and it is fine.
2. I think it is best if the value of inducements is generally less than the value of the extra team value the are compensating for, but close enough for a reasonable match.
3. The problem with clawpomb only really exists in leagues such as Blackbox where there is no restriction on the racial selection, opponents can not choose to avoid playing you and where it is possible to play a large number of games with the same team (the perfect storm scenario). Typically this scenario will happen in online play. Most of the suggestions are about 'balancing' clawpomb fo all Bloodbowl, but perhaps consideration should be given to variant rules applicable to 'perfect storm' leagues.
4. Attrition levels feel about right to me but of course this varies across races and divisions. It might be better if attrition levels were more balanced across races in blackbox leagues.
5. TV is a good mechanic for enabling reasonable inducements if there is a TV difference, however, it is insufficiently accurate for TV matching leagues like black box.
6. I rarely play at high TV so have not developed a strong view about spiralling expenses. I think in practice it is low attrition teams that have excess money rather than high TV teams though, so a rule to reduce gold hoarding would do well to take that into account.
7. Fan factor is an ineffective success tax an I doubt that was its purpose. Ideally TV would fairly reflect all upgrades but in the absence of that FF being overpriced is not an issue.
8. Star players, as with all inducements, should be worth less than their price - otherwise what is the incentive to team build?
9. I think it is reasonable for there to be some rosters that are balanced with each other and other rosters that are designed intentionally to be more challenging. An element of 'paper-scissors-stone' is okay provided match ups remain reasonably competitive.
10. If by 'faster play' you mean coaches moving faster I think this would be good for leagues to have the option of shorted time controls (which in League Division I think they do). The number of touchdowns per game is fine.
11. I think the game is fine. For specific leagues optional rules for 'non-stall' leagues could be a good addition e.g. 4x4 turn quarters instead of 2x8 turn halves.
12. It seems a shame to me to penalise players as they develop with 'ageing'. Provided the attrition rate is high enough I don't seethe point in aging.
13. Secret weapons being largely limited to star players seem a shame but if introduced to rosters thy would need to be priced carefully so it was viable to play with or without them. Auto bans are fine provided the player costs reflects this.
14. The wizard is probably underpriced, which in my view is a misake. I prefer wizards to be inducements rather than all teams having them.
15. I don't see it as important whether gold has more uses. The minor issue is that some teams have low attrition and therefore get to much gold, not that there is nothing to spend the gold on. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 21:21 |
|
1. I think 2 is always a fail and 6 is always a success is what defines bbowl. So i think huge risks and big variance are fine.
2. It depends on the inducement. I think inducement should be a little more expensive than team option, but the different inducements should be prized fairly. Currently there are a few really strong inducement, and the rest are very bad.
3. Pomb against armor 7 is too good, that is the problem. And CPomb makes everything armor 7. 7 is the most common roll on a 2d6, so it makes a huge difference if you break armor on 7 or not. Easy fix would be to remove the armor option from mighty blow, that would fix it, you would need to roll 8 to break armor.
4. Slightly lower attrition during the game, and sligtly higher in perms and deathes.
5. TV is good.
6. It is weird. See point No4.
7. It is good at being a success tax. Also saves bbox from some extreme rookie team hunting.
8. They are mostly too overcosted. Most of them should be a bit cheaper.
9. Some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'.
10. Yes, but that is some contradiction. As stalling makes the games shorter in time.
11. Yes. The way to achieve is
- lower in game attrition
- easier cagebreaking
12. No, never ever. Forget aging. And when you did that, do a lobotomy. Then forget again if you had this idea.
13. Fine as now. Maybe some help through sneaky git buff, but that is all.
14. Completeley depends on everything else. Too many moving pieces to tell. Probably either as it is and maybe little more expensive.
15. Cant imagine, but cant rule out either.
16. They are about fine. |
_________________
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 21:42 |
|
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
Off the field I don't think it is that random. On the field I don't know.....I think less of the experienced coaches would quit, but weaker coaches would stand less of a chance.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
No, top dog should be the favourite.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
Too easy to achieve for me......or the full combo. I'd rather answer the question for PO only. It's a useful tool for BloodBowl, so it shouldn't be altered, just removed for the majority of players.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
I don't have a strong opinion either way.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
Depends on what it is used for. Resurrection; very good. Perpetual game finding teams matching; extremely poor.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
Were Spiralling Expenses actually necessary? At the very best; extremely flawed.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
I did not see a problem with the old LRB4 FF system (bar that you had to start with a high number). So the old 9 became the new 0, and you can't buy FF and it's good in my opinion.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
It probably depends on the environment (Resurrection/League/Perpetual). They certainly aren't broken right now, so maybe they shouldn't be messed about with too much.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
Balancing rosters would curb creativity. So a definite 'balance isn't an issue'. However new rosters should be generally weaker than current rosters. (unless a super tier was invented).
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
How would you do that with Dwarfs? Especially as slow, deliberate, annoying are all Dwarven traits.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Yes.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
Aging is a pretty negative mechanic. However in my opinion it was beneficial. The first thing that needs to be addressed is how injuries tend to mean auto-retirement. So a difficult balance. Aging=Strong enough to share SPP around/weak enough that aged players aren't auto (or generally auto) retired. Not easy.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
More options are better, so more secret weapons and a bit more use would be better I guess. Should they be auto-banned? Stunty Div has already answered that, and got it correct.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
I think maybe more balance between the 2 spells. More how they were pre LRB5. And maybe you have to choose 1 or the other before the game. Maybe make it like leader for some teams? I.e. the spellcaster is on the pitch and if removed......
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
Well it's certainly better now than it was under LRB4. I think you'd have to give examples before answering. Generally though more options are better.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
No strong opinion either way. However trying to make the game more serious for the serious competitive gamer, isn't the way to go. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 21:52 |
|
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
I don't think team building is particularly random, I know you're probably talking about the skill up rolls, but I think it's fine as implemented. However, it does matter if you're talking about leagues vs. open ladder environments. In that case, a league team who gets a bunch of statups (and doubles to a lesser extent) can be significantly favored over the opposition, whereas in a ladder environment (with TV based MM) they are not as advantaged.
The random nature of the actual play is mostly the point though. You could argue about going to a d20 system or something and putting in more granularity, but that only favors the more skilled players, the current level of 'luck' or 'variance' seems fine to me.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
Completely don't understand the point of this question. How do we know that 50k for a Babe isn't 'worth it's listed value'? We do know that 2 babes vs. an apo has different value depending on the matchup though. So these values cannot really ever be actually 'fixed' since their value is actually fluid depending on matchup.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
I know the answer to this. It's that it's too easy to SPAM for certain rosters. Fix Chaos, Pact, and Nurgle skill acquisition (basically take S access away from beastmen, Mauraders, and Prestis) and the problem goes away.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
Higher, but not due to on pitch rules. Yes, I'm talking about 'aging' though not the lrb4 kind of aging. The one BB2 uses actually has some merit, basically after ~80 games any player may retire. Unfair? Maybe, but frankly (unless you're undead) who's actually able to play 100s of games?
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
It's good and flawed at the same time. I'm not opposed to some more complicated TS type of thing, but (as others discussed) it needs to be clearly understood and very transparent. Generally though it does what it's supposed to do, it penalizes you if you build a bloated team, and it benefits you if you build a trim team. This gets taken to an extreme by some with min/maxing, but to me that's an issue of meta, not an issue of TV. So for open ladder type leagues min/maxing is a problem. For most leagues it's not, because min/maxing doesn't help you beat a team (well built we assume) that is 500k TV above you.
The problem with TV is that it sucks for match making algorithms. It's really not bad at all in a challenge environment (like R) or a league with fixed matches.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
They are necessary, but they are flawed because players live too long for certain rosters/metas. If there were more turn over of players on long played teams it would be unnecessary I think.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
Again, this winds up being more of a question of meta than an actual indictment of FF generally. We can look at the TV++ discussions (elsewhere probably) to see that FF could be used 'better' as a winners tax in generating match ups and/or providing inducements to the 'worse' team.
For fluff reasons I'd like to see FF have more in game meaning though.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
This ties into a larger discussion of inducement value and TV match making. As things currently stand I have no issues with the star players being 'over costed'.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
I think it's fine as it is. I support tweaking some rosters slightly (or not so slightly) to address cpomb spam, but otherwise I think a little bit of R/P/S works, and I think that with as diverse a selection of rosters available you can find your niche in whatever meta you play in.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
No. At least not without reworking more rules/rosters than it's worth doing.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
No.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
I answered this already Yes for open ladders, optional (as it should be) for leagues.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Secret weapons are mostly crap, which is fine, outside of gobblins, they are pretty much just an inducement you might take depending on match up. It's a fine line to balance though, because some SWs are probably too good if they have their use restrictions lessened.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Wizard is fine. Again, how we treat TV and inducements affects the value, so actually answering what it should cost depends on other factors.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
Yes. But more for fluff than actual in game impact. Though the way cyanide does it with the stadium up grades and enhancements only goes so far.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
I'd vote for removing it entirely (or allowing coaches to use a reroll on it), but it's not that bad. Probably prefer to balance it a bit by moving certain events to different probabilities though. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 21:54 |
|
Scary that HM and I used the same reply scheme (well inverted), also on how much we appear to agree on. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 21:56 |
|
I thought the way HM did it was confusing. There was always an instinct to skip the bold text and read through the rest.
EDIT: HM, note as I say this I did actually read through everything you said. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 22:21 |
|
Oh crap...
Now Wreckage thinks like me too?
End days are upon us, end days peeps. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 22:44 |
|
is this data mining?
i thought data mining was done to be more efficient, like creating an AI search of previous fora etc? |
_________________
 |
|
tmoila
Joined: Nov 25, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 00:03 |
|
1. Blood Bowl would be a much better game with less randomness. It would also be a very different game.
2. Inducements need to be overpriced to compensate for their immense value. Maybe balancing out some indcuments in either direction would make a change in this.
3. Too easy to achieve and too easy to get away with.
4. Lower attrition levels for more team building aspect.
5. It is a fair mechanic.
6. Bad and flawed and needs to be purged.
7. Fan factor should be both the tax and serve slightly larger purpose than just effecting the FAME roll.
8. Like with the inducements, they should be overpriced.
9. As there will always be better teams in overall and inferior teams, and something in between, there is no need to balance out all the teams. More variety in positionals could provide interesting results though...
10. No it wouldn't.
11. Stalling is integral mechanic in the current form of BB so change is needed in that regard.
12. No. Just no.
13. Current balance of the secret weapons is good, but maybe bringing back the roll to ban would be appropriate.
14. Wizard is a good tier 1 inducement, but needs no nerf or removal.
15. Yes, obviously.
16. As per the first question answered: Kick-offs are a big random factor, but BB is a very random powered game so it wouldn't really be fruitful to change this aspect and leave everything else same. |
_________________
gg |
|
ArthurWynne
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 00:55 |
|
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
Generally it is great the way it is. It could benefit from being slightly less random in that there are e few mechanics which add more dice rolls to very little benefit (e.g current implementations of Dauntless, Animosity, Always Hungry, Pro.)
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
The worth of inducements is sufficiently close to their listed value in my experience, considering that you get to choose the ones that will benefit you the most before each match-up. But there should be more cheap inducements -more choices than just Babes at 50k, and options at 40 to 20k if they can be balanced properly -having inducement money that you can't use sucks, and 20k is the cost of a skill, which is a big enough difference to compensate with an inducement IMO. Also, some Star Players should be cheaper (see below).
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
As I see it, the problem is that it's too good -spesifically, Pile On is too good.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
Slightly lower – I think it's roughly fine as is, but CPOMB on a good day just wrecks teams and needs to be reined in, and I don't think it's necessary to compensate for that by upping attrition elsewhere.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
A very good mechanic for league play, a flawed mechanic for matchmaking because not all teams have or are intended to have the same development curve. I'm not sure how or if it could be implemented better for open matchmaking environments, though.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
Good, in my experience... but I don't have a whole lot of experience at those TV levels.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
Fan Factor should be free (and not purchaseable). It is better as a minor bonus for good play than as a success tax IMO, because it doesn't make sense that Fan Factor is something you would want to keep as low as possible. (Besides, it's gained and lost randomly, so it doesn't work well as a success tax unless that's changed anyway.)
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
According to their abilities, except that they have Loner – they are inducements after all so they shouldn't be completely efficient, but many of them are too expensive as they are.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
Somewhere in the middle – complete balance is not necessary but the lower-tier teams should be powered up as long as that doesn't change their playstyle overmuch (e.g, cheaper rerolls for Vampires, remove Animosity and Always Hungry from Underworld players, give Goblins more weapons etc.)
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
Probably not. In principle yes, but it works very well as it is and it is hard to see how to bring about those changes without invoking unintended consequences.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Same answer as 10.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
No, aging and other things that cause off-pitch rolls to have a great impact on your team are no fun.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
The current balance is about right. Weapons should be auto-banned, for simplicity's sake if no other reason. Some teams could stand to be a bit less «novel» though -most notably Ogres.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Not in any way that I can see. It works well as it is.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
Mostly not, but I would appreciate one spesific change/clarification: You should unambiguously be able to «top up» free inducements with petty cash if desired, eg. pay 100 gold to get a wizard if you were getting 50k in inducements. With the way this is implemented differently across various platforms today I'm not sure if that's the actual rule, an optional rule or a rules change, but I think it's how things ought to work.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
Less, but not by a great deal – changing the ordering of the table so the more extreme events occur less often would probably do the trick. |
Last edited by ArthurWynne on %b %28, %2016 - %01:%Apr; edited 2 times in total |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 00:56 |
|
1. No. The crazy crap is what makes it fun (yes, even the thrown rock).
2. No. It would encourage lower TV even more than it already is.
3. I have no problem with CPOMB. I think its just fine (and I like to play the squishies).
4. Nope. I like it just fine.
5. Its a bit flawed. A reroll should add the same TV regardless of what team since it has the same mechanical effect in game. The price could still be different.
6. None of the above.
7. Its a success tax. I would eliminate it from TV.
8. They should be overinflated because you don't care if they live or die (outside of winning or losing the game).
9. No different than it stands. Some are balanced against each other while some are gimmicky and some plain bad. I like it that way as it adds challenge, but TV should reflect a bad team (somehow).
10. No it would be too risky to throwing the game further towards elves and skaven.
11. No. See 10.
12. It should be an option, but not in general. It feels too rpg'y.
13. Current balance is about right.
14. I would increase to 200 personally, but am not sure about it.
15. Like to buy pie?
16. They should be left alone cause without them, the fast teams suffer immensely. They are the natural counter-balance to stalling.
Thanks for playing! |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
 |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 00:58 |
|
| Quote: | | You should unambiguously be able to «top up» free inducements with petty cash if desired, eg. pay 100 gold to get a wizard if you were getting 50k in inducements. With the way this is implemented differently across various platforms today I'm not sure if that's the actual rule, an optional rule or a rules change, but I think it's how things ought to work. |
The rule is actually very clear. Cyanide does not handle it properly, FUMBBL does. You should never be able to 'top off' free inducements, that is clearly a path to madness and abuse. At least the bank rule holds it in check for BB2, but even that is not a particularly well received rule, considering how it impacts your ability to use for money for fluff (stadiums). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
