70 coaches online • Server time: 20:13
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post UW Goblins - Disturb...goto Post Is kicking first wit...goto Post FUMBBL Cup XVI - Fan...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
What do you think?
I like it - seems like it might be a good alterntive to CRP
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Not for me - I think I'll stick with CRP thanks
50%
 50%  [ 16 ]
Pie!!!
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 32


ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 21:02 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
I have one question for you though AD, why do you think it would ruin tabletop?



Because you've really upset the balance of things at the level of 1200-1400. That's going to hit tabletop, and especially tabletop fixed TV res tourneys with skill choice allowances really hard.

The hard counter of dorfs to zons hasn't really been completely removed as they can still have a number of starting tackle, and they also get access to starting standfirm (and when mixed in with the new lower costed blockers it's basically free). The value of that to positional play cannot be understated. Giving the blitzers the starting tackle also reduces the "tacklespam" aspect, but makes it more mobile.

For an elven team in eg. NAF, your dwarves are actually potentially a more frightening prospect than CRP - it causes them to have to consider spending a double just to have a one turn option, or forgoing that, the positional play allowed by your choices allows a more formidable roster prospect for a dwarven coach - at 1200/1400 elven teams are rarely spamming blodge, so removing tacklespam doesn't actually hinder a dwarven team in that matchup, wheras the utility of standfirm does actually help a lot.

Orcs... Well, let's start by saying you've successfully removed their reliability. 2x block on the team and taking even taking linos you'd still need to spend two singles just to get back to where they were in that regard. However, you've also made them effectively slower, and nerfed their av9. Orcs are pretty useless as soon as you start losing players because they're slow, and you've made both de-pitching more likely, and the average speed of the roster slower. Skill access isn't included in cost calculation for a reason, and your addition of ST access does not justify the -MA on the orc lino compared to a human one, the +AV currently in CRP does. Your orc roster is slower, unreliable and weaker. I'm not sure I'd even bother playing them long enough to see high tv when i think about it.

The woodies change is small but very significant.

You effectively make a wardancer's first choice skill either wrestle, giving an overall (3+ leap, -2d block) chance of popping the ball at 16.67% (no reroll) or 34.7% (reroll available); or strip ball, giving a chance of popping the ball at 29.6% (no reroll) or 55.9% (reroll available) assuming no surehands. Couple that with your fouling buff, and suddenly Wood Elves are much, much less threatening to a team with St3 surehands - yes, there is a still not unreasonable chance that a wardancer may be able to pop the ball with wrestle, but that option is now something that needs extremely careful consideration and as a result just makes play against woodies much simpler - part of the reason you cannot simply wantonly bash the hell out of woodies is the constant threat to the ball and the fact that they have (usually) 2 blodgers.

The real winners here are Undead, and they're already very, very strong at low tv. But Darkies and Lizards profit heavily too.

_________________
Image
spelledaren



Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 21:46 Reply with quote Back to top

It's interesting. Roster balance is really tricky. Tackle doesn't matter a lot of the time. The problem is less with dwarfs and more with Amazons. Why have a team that is completely destroyed by the build of another team? I agree that orcs are generally very good, and it's odd how they easily field a 0-lineman team if they want.

I don't mind claw as it is, but prefer armour reroll only for PO. I agree with a small buff to fouling.

I don't like the abundance of dwarf linemen. it gets messy. I went down to only TS for dwarf linos, but in my set of teams no other lineman has S access, and all but one team has a maximum of 6 strength positionals, so that makes S access more valuable in comparison.

_________________
FUMBBL!
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 21:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Sigh... Amazons are so misunderstood.

_________________
Image
"This is turning into the best thing on FUMBBL" - Seventyone
"THIS LEAGUE IS AWESOME!!!!" - Kummo
"Last league i would leave." - SpecialOne
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 04:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Matthueycamo wrote:
JellyBelly wrote:

I'm glad you like the look of the Dwarf team, although I don't quite follow why you think they are effectively cheaper at high TV ...


They are cheaper because of being leaner TV wise. The line Dwarfs with block no tackle will be 10k cheaper by the time you exhaust good singles. Once you have MB/G/SF you start your get diminishing returns on single skills for blockers. If tackle now has to be taken then each blocker has to get to 5th skill with singles before seeing reduced returns. So that's 10k cheaper at high TV for pretty much the same effectiveness. Pro is OK but not really worth 20k on a guy not rolling dice that don't cause turnovers and a team that is not usually short of RR. Grab is OK too but something I could do with out. PO is not worth it on a blocker. The changes to Blitzers who suit skills like that better still makes them bloat at a higher level. Right now this is a problem I am facing with my WIL team blockers. The majority of them I would be glad of a 10k drop and have tackle instead of one of their other single skills.


I've been thinking about what you said here and I think it depends on whether you think Tackle is a 'good single' skill for the Blockers and whether you value the mass tackle they have atm. If you don't value the Tackle then, I agree, you're effectively paying 10k more in CRP for a skill you don't want. However, if you do value the tackle, then my roster is clearly more expensive. A blocker with B/T/MB/G/SF will cost 130k in CRP and 140k in LRB Jelly. Your WIL Dwarf team would cost 70k more, for a team with exactly the same skills (although in my ruleset both Blitzers would start with tackle).

_________________
"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!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 04:17 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:
Worst of both worlds. I prefer lrb4 and crp over the proposal.


Thanks, bghandras, although I'd be really interested to hear why you think it's the worst of both worlds.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 04:29 Reply with quote Back to top

@Netflux: my intention isn't to 'screw over' Dwarves, but I feel that they need to lose some of the 'out of the box' reliability at low TV, given they are so good at high TV as well, plus the fact that the Block/Tackle really screws up several other teams at low TV. Also, they are benefitting heavily at higher TV from the change to Claw.

I also considered just taking away the Tackle, but I think that would too much of a boost to the agile teams and Zons at low TV. I wanted them to still have the option of having more tackle if they want it, but with the trade-off of less reliability from not starting with Block.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 04:35 Reply with quote Back to top

Blanket tackle is nice against Zons and high TV elves but I don't think I would want it blanket out of choice, and I also think it would cut a probably not very useful skill from those that make legend which is probably more likely with bash nerf. Maybe would take tackle at star or superstar on some.

Slayers and Blitzers to take/start with tackle, pocket the 10k saving in the blockers. That would probably be a 50k saving for how I run my teams. To get the same skills set in your LRB you need one more skill so that blocker in CRP with the same spp would still be 10k more.

_________________
Image

DLE College 7s
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 05:08 Reply with quote Back to top

@AD(first post): Thanks for your comments AD and I really appreciate that you actually read through the whole document Smile . To address your points, firstly I really do feel that bash has won out over ball in CRP, especially at high TV, which seems to be evident in the Blackbox as well as FUMBBL majors. Pre-CRP, there were way more elf teams making deep runs and winning majors than there are now. Now, they are barely considered tier 1 (which to me is a travesty). I think the problem lies in the fact that the sweetspot for the elven teams is at high TV; however, in CRP with all the POMB (plus spiralling expenses), it's a lot more difficult for them to stay in that sweetspot where they are most competitive (and fun).

At the end of your post, you claim that a lot of my changes are focused on bringing elves back to the top of the pile, because that's what I play. In a sense, that is kind of true - I do believe that elves should be top tier competitors at high TV. The thing is, I could also flip your point around about nerfing bash but not elves: in LRB4, elves were at the top of the pile at high TV; however, in CRP, the bash teams (especially the one with Claw access), received a significant boost, but the elf teams got bugger all! Oh, spiralling expenses .. Rolling Eyes Another reason why I've tried to focus some nerf on Orcs/Dwarves in particular is because of the boost to AV9 from the change to Claw (which they are the main beneficiaries of).

I guess this partly comes down to where you think elves are/should be placed in terms of competitiveness at high TV, and it seems we differ in opinion on that.

The thing with fouling giving a reroll to armour and +1 injury is just because that seems to give the de-pitch probability profile that I was looking for. I don't see why the mechanism is worse than any other, if it achieves the desired goal.

I see your point about Khemri - I wasn't really sure about them, as I don't play them myself. I have an open mind on it and I'd be willing to look at taking away the decay.

About the Claw giving -1 vs AV7 and lower: as I mentioned in my reply to Kam, as you reduce the starting AV on a player, the bigger the impact the injury modifiers will have, as there is a higher chance you will break armour anyway (regardless of modifiers/rerolls). For example, even if you just assume the armour breaks in LRB Jelly (no armour roll at all), the chance of de-pitching on the +1 to injury from MB is 58% (21/36), which is about the same odds as POMB vs AV7 in CRP. Just think about that for a second - the chance of de-pitching AV7 with POMB in CRP is the same as if you just ignore armour completely in LRB Jelly! Shocked For low AV players, that PO reroll to injury is the real killer!

_________________
"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!!" Razz


Last edited by JellyBelly on Aug 09, 2016 - 05:43; edited 1 time in total
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 05:32 Reply with quote Back to top

@AD(second post): I admit that I don't play tabletop resurrection tournaments and that format wasn't foremost on my mind when I compiled the ruleset. As spelledaren said, I think trying to balance rosters at all TV levels is very difficult (maybe even an impossible task). However, I personally think the roster balance at high TV in CRP is very bad indeed - essentially there are two killer teams that can have their cake and eat it, killing and winning at the same time. So, high TV is where I focused most of my attention.

One thing I wanted to achieve in my ruleset was that there shouldn't be any teams that are top tier at high TV, but also very good at low TV as well. So, I'm not too bothered if Undead are strong at low TV, because they're not top tier higher up. Similarly, the nerf to Orcs and Woodies at low TV was intentional, because they are top teams at high TV.

I was trying to take away some of that low TV reliability from Dwarves as well, by separating the Block and Tackle, and if that's not the case then I'd be a bit concerned. The point about SF shutting down 1-turning is interesting and I hadn't considered the effect of that at low TV. Still, by taking that, they would be passing up Block, which would make them less reliable against teams like Humans, Norse, Darkies for example.

I think the roster suggestions would benefit a lot from playtesting (obviously). I don't see much of an issue if the roster balance shifts a bit in one particular TV range, as long as one team doesn't become completely dominant, which I don't think it would.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 06:21 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
@AD(first post): Thanks for your comments AD and I really appreciate that you actually read through the whole document Smile . To address your points, firstly I really do feel that bash has won out over ball in CRP, especially at high TV, which seems to be evident in the Blackbox as well as FUMBBL majors. Pre-CRP, there were way more elf teams making deep runs and winning majors than there are now. Now, they are barely considered tier 1 (which to me is a travesty). I think the problem lies in the fact that the sweetspot for the elven teams is at high TV; however, in CRP with all the POMB (plus spiralling expenses), it's a lot more difficult for them to stay in that sweetspot where they are most competitive (and fun).

At the end of your post, you claim that a lot of my changes are focused on bringing elves back to the top of the pile, because that's what I play. In a sense, that is kind of true - I do believe that elves should be top tier competitors at high TV. The thing is, I could also flip your point around about nerfing bash but not elves: in LRB4, elves were at the top of the pile at high TV; however, in CRP, the bash teams (especially the one with Claw access), received a significant boost, but the elf teams got bugger all! Oh, spiralling expenses .. Rolling Eyes Another reason why I've tried to focus some nerf on Orcs/Dwarves in particular is because of the boost to AV9 from the change to Claw (which they are the main beneficiaries of).

I guess this partly comes down to where you think elves are/should be placed in terms of competitiveness at high TV, and it seems we differ in opinion on that.

The thing with fouling giving a reroll to armour and +1 injury is just because that seems to give the de-pitch probability profile that I was looking for. I don't see why the mechanism is worse than any other, if it achieves the desired goal.

I see your point about Khemri - I wasn't really sure about them, as I don't play them myself. I have an open mind on it and I'd be willing to look at taking away the decay.

About the Claw giving -1 vs AV7 and lower: as I mentioned in my reply to Kam, as you reduce the starting AV on a player, the bigger the impact the injury modifiers will have, as there is a higher chance you will break armour anyway (regardless of modifiers/rerolls). For example, even if you just assume the armour breaks in LRB Jelly (no armour roll at all), the chance of de-pitching on the +1 to injury from MB is 58% (21/36), which is about the same odds as POMB vs AV7 in CRP. Just think about that for a second - the chance of de-pitching AV7 with POMB in CRP is the same as if you just ignore armour completely in LRB Jelly! Shocked For low AV players, that PO reroll to injury is the real killer!


Sure mate, I don't disagree with you that in perpetual environments there is more impetus for people to play bash, simply because it's easier to keep a bash team alive longer and a perpetual environment is essentially progress quest.
What I did and do disagree with is the idea that in a one off game the bash team is much stronger - it isn't necessarily true.
The majors, box and ranked are all flawed environments in their own ways, and aren't really good for judging rule and roster strength except in those environments.
I think you'll have real, strong issues ever coming up with a ruleset that is anything other than flawed unless you take into account that for a pretty large subset of players, high tv bloodbowl is neither the regular form of play, nor even the desirable form of play. And this is without even considering people who are playing res.

My point about High Elves was mostly a bit of fun, since I know you play them and enjoy them most Wink However, it is actually pretty obviously true! :p

I don't disagree with you that elves should be top tier, what we do disagree about is how you go about judging that - I don't think you judge a team's ability to be "top tier" or not on their capability of running the gauntlet in box, or winning a major.


I don't like the armour reroll because quite frankly if you're not breaking armour on a foul you're not doing it properly anyway. It might have been handy in the current ruleset as a replacement for sneaky git (in order to potentially get rid of doubles rolls on armour). But for me, if you're going to buff fouling it needs to be +2 to injury again. Especially true when you consider that a lot of the high tv cpomb monsters you wish to get rid of have regen.

Really, my issue with your ruleset is that it's sole focus appears to be on balancing a very focused point of bloodbowl, but it's not really the area everyone plays at. I think if you'd presented the claw nerf on its own (or alongside the fouling) people might be more receptive, but the additional baggage really detracts from it; and own its own, it's hardly anything majorly different from other past proposals.

_________________
Image
Nextflux



Joined: Jan 22, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 17:27 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
@Netflux: my intention isn't to 'screw over' Dwarves, but I feel that they need to lose some of the 'out of the box' reliability at low TV, given they are so good at high TV as well, plus the fact that the Block/Tackle really screws up several other teams at low TV. Also, they are benefitting heavily at higher TV from the change to Claw.

I also considered just taking away the Tackle, but I think that would too much of a boost to the agile teams and Zons at low TV. I wanted them to still have the option of having more tackle if they want it, but with the trade-off of less reliability from not starting with Block.


Ok, I disagree though, tackle is one of the best skills in the game, all dorfs should take tackle if they dont have it, add tackle to block and you have two tier 1 skills to start with, and they have thick skull, and they have ST access and high av.
Amazon line for example have av7 and start with dodge.
The usual pick for dorfs is MB and Guard for the 2 first skills, at 16 ssp they their only faiure is that they are slow.
I also some time ago got an insight in how dorfs was originally made, according to a formula by the creators.
Actually dorf linemen got a free 10k discount compared to other races..
Then there is the issue about the linemen being better than positionals, though slower exp progress is a small problem when you can end up with a total of 9 skills (legend+block,tackle and thick skull)

I dont think wrestle helps, block is better since it fits better with the dorf, I also think when creating rosters, one has to consider what "seems right" in reality too, why was tackle given to dorfs? Was it because of some misunderstanding that "since the dorfs are short people its hard to dodge between their feets?" this notion is clearly wrong, dodging doesnt have to be through people, it is more away from people, short people would be terrible tacklers, actually incredible bad, it doesnt make sense.

Too bad no one seems to understand me, so my crusade will just continue with frustration and anger into eternity.
garyt1



Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 19:35 Reply with quote Back to top

I suspect tackle was given to Dwarfs partly to reflect some superiority to the likes of human and Elves in fighting skills, and to compensate for their slowness. And also becuase Elves often take Dodge and Dwarfs were meant to be their opposing team type as in Warhammer etc.

As for Elves not being tier 1 at high TV, well I suspect they are among the best at all TVs. At least Wood Elves. But the heavy hitting means they don't stay there and can give some demoralising games.
For example High Elves topped the Black Box sprint Jun/July.

_________________
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 19:40 Reply with quote Back to top

garyt1 wrote:
I suspect tackle was given to Dwarfs partly to reflect some superiority to the likes of human and Elves in fighting skills, and to compensate for their slowness. And also becuase Elves often take Dodge and Dwarfs were meant to be their opposing team type as in Warhammer etc.

As for Elves not being tier 1 at high TV, well I suspect they are among the best at all TVs. At least Wood Elves. But the heavy hitting means they don't stay there and can give some demoralising games.
For example High Elves topped the Black Box sprint Jun/July.


There's only one tier 1 team at high TV - Nurgle. No one denies this.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 20:14
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
mister__joshua wrote:
I'm not going to comment on everything, but I don't think your dwarf roster hits your goal. You say they're too reliable, but then give tackle to the players that really want it while taking it off the slow players (who can't make as much use of it) and reducing their cost. I think you've actually made them better. Not bad if that's what you wanted, but not your goal.

I also don't think any team should have 3 different 0-16 positions, especially if there's no particular need for it.


Thanks for your comments Mr.J, although it seems we have quite a difference of opinion on the Dwarves. I would think elves/Zons/stunties would be more concerned about mass Block/Tackle across most of a team at low TV, rather than on just two MA5 players.

Regarding the costs, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I've actually increased their cost, relative to the skills they have. I've taken away a core skill that is worth 20k and only dropped the cost by 10k. So, the team will actually cost more at higher TV, compared to a skill-equivalent team in CRP. Part of the reason for that is again because, with the boost to AV9, I was concerned they might be overpowered.


I don't think we have very different opinions on Dwarves. If you look at my dwarf roster (in my sig) it's not that different to your own. I removed Tackle from the blockers, and lowered the price of the Roller. I didn't set out to make them worse though, I thought they needed to lost tacklespam to protect from 'free wins' against stunties, and I thought they could get a small boost at higher TV once claws start punishing them. I think losing tackle on the Blockers for 10k does both of these things.

My main objection is the 3 0-16 players though. There's no need for it, it gives them loads more options than any other team gets, and it's not something any other roster does with the possible exception of Undead, but you can't really compare this with Zombies and Skeletons. Smile

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 09, 2016 - 21:38 Reply with quote Back to top

To address the Dwarves thing Jelly, I could be wrong, but I think you're missing out on the perspective of actually playing as Dwarves long-term rather than against them. Tacklespam is "nice to have, but not essential". Stunties are going to struggle vs Dwarves anyway due to blockspam (go check their records vs norse), nothing you can do about that, but just to demonstrate:

2x Blitzers 200k
3x SF/Tackle 240k
4x Blocker 240k
1x Slayer 90k
1x Runner 80k
3x reroll 150k

tv: 1000k

5 tackle anyway. And it's either more mobile or immovable. There's 3x standfirm to place either on the LOS (vs one turn), or in widezones + central screen position. Slayer and runner to taste, and 3 rerolls (can take 2 + apo if preferred).

I'd expect an easier ride than a similar dwarf team in CRP might have, simply because I can suffocate drives much more easily with my Standfirmers (who will take block, but my blockers will never actually take tackle), my Blitzers are already setup quite nicely even if they never gain another skill, and my troll slayer(s) + runner(s) are just as dependable as ever. This team could end up rather horrific if going 1rr + leader route, especially since you're now ignoring fan factor in costing, but if one were to go absolutely the other way and aim for high tv, then there is also the option of picking up 3x wrestle for the LOS later.

You've made dwarves stronger.

_________________
Image
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits