ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 20:53 |
 
|
I never mentioned pedantry 
And besides, it should be clear anyway, while I'm putting forward a soapbox - it doesn't matter a jot what I think R&B are. It's Christer's site. |
_________________
 |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 21:04 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | I never mentioned pedantry :P |
I never mentioned you either ;-)
One way out would be to say that R & B are open leagues that prepare teams for tournaments.
There are Wimbledon tournaments like the Chaos Cup.
There are in-league tournaments like Sprints and ARRR!
My simple point is that the New Official Rules section starts thus:
| Quote: | | The following section represents the official and sacred word of the great god Nuffle on the subject. |
It then distinguishes "one-off games" from "running a team over the course of a series of games."
So I duly submit that the basic entity in the BB world of evolutive play is the league (alternatively written "leeg"), and that considering R&B as a series of "one-off games" that is not within a leeg goes against Nuffle's will.
***
In any event, I think the first thing to consider is if R & B will implement the Expensive Mistakes step of the post-match sequence. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| Quote: | | If none of that ever existed and FUMBBL arrived today, would we set up main divisions like that? Or would we look at the rules and implement something resembling a seasonal cycle? Something totally different? I'm just a bloke with an opinion like any of you, but I think if these divisions are supposed to be competitive, steering the direction to maximum TV and then playing for KO cups isn't the form of the game that replies most upon skill. It also encourages undesirable behaviours in the community; the best way of winning these things is not being the best FUMBBL citizen. We don't know how the new rules will all subtly affect things (and it will be subtle - the game is > 98 % the same as CRP), but D3 MVP might make teams more competitive and robust at lower TV, making progression teams look more like resurrection tournament teams (my MVP goes on any of these three Saurus, please, much less forever cycling Skinks until my team begins to look half decent). I think this is good for competitive BB, although I regret the fluffiness of 4 skill Zombies eating all of the MVPs going out of the window. The removal of the predominant attrition skill in the game might well allow teams to go on for longer between rebuilds, attaining bigger and bigger TVs. Without some mechanism external to the game keeping them in check, I'm not sure we'll end up in a super desirable place. I'd quite like to be encouraged to keep playing in that lower TV area where skills are more favourably distributed than now; that seems quite nice. The challenge of deciding what to fire / re-hire would be interesting too. Coaches of long lived teams will tell you that it's the brand of the team that matters, players come and go. I think it all might work rather nicely, or at least, be no better or worse than now. |
You might be right. That might be a halcyon future, and I embrace change and would give it a go personally. I also think you are right about the resistance to, and fear of, change.
But you do, i think, leave out the human behaviour side of the internet. And the history of FUMBBL.
We had Faction and ladder, and other attempts to do mass time limited concepts, and they struggle to fit to online lifestyles, where people crave freedom and diversity of options. We had ageing, and the semi enforced euthanasia of players, it was not popular. to put it very mildly.
It may be better to leave R and B as they are (or merge them, I have always thought) and to build a new struture.
Partly to avoid the inertia or existing structures, and partly because I think the changes are going to be FAR bigger than most people realise.
With CRP i cried 'flat skill cost' from the wilderness, and still do. It was and is the biggest thing that changed. It was central to CRP and to the minmax dream roster world it created.
Now I am going to cry 'Roster Limitation', and likely be ignored again. the season structure will bring fascinating changes. Perhaps some we will have to find and develop, but one I think i see coming is massive changes to standard race rosters. As shown by NAF tourney structure time and again, most of the popular rosters don't get all the toys at TV1000. This is why most NAF tourneys bung you around 1150 and some skills. If the season reset(based arounf TV1000) is to be effective it therefore going to have to change the kind of builds we see. DE with 4 blitzers, witches, an assassin and a runner? nope. gone. Or there, but without skills.
Meanwhile some races, perpetually screwed by NAF rules, will be just fine. Dorfs put out a mighty fine TV1000 roster. So any reset all they have to do is buy skills.
Oh, and did you say Claw got nerfed a bit?
Welcome to the Ruleset of the beard. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 21:18 |
|
Another issue incidentally is quite simple:
If you were to introduce such a rule, then every team that is already packed to the rafters with the players necessary to play in tournaments has an inherent advantage. This would be magnified if you make tournament games exclusive - there are already plenty of teams "shelved" when not playing in tournaments, and this just provides further incentive not to actually play for a team that is not bound to a schedule. |
_________________
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I wasn't just thinking of tournament prep when suggesting this idea. I think even for casual players, TV being more generally even could be a positive thing.
And (just for the record) I wasn't advocating this be used for R and B. Just discussing the possible merits. FWIW I don't think it's likely to ever happen. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
But the idea of the main competitive division being one where no team has played more than 20 games without a reset, or teams coming to majors on 19/20 games. Of just about every team listed to play being reasonably close in TV.
That interests me. Admittedly I pretty much play B this way now.
I am just not sure I want it enforced on R/B. But do think the changes may be so huge as to make FUMBBL a backwater of retrogaming if we don't try to absorb them.
So that's why I'd build something new, and see what happens in it. This has also been Christer habit in the past. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Tomay
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 21:33 |
|
I think if it were to be done in ranked or box it should be between Major Seasons... That would make the most sense for FUMBBL imo. Also, it would be quite exciting seeing the major race restart each season to see who can build from basically scratch. |
_________________
Join now and "Create a Legend" |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 21:34 |
|
Well all I'll say is that was an incredibly leading initial post if you didn't intend that avenue of discussion at all.
As for the actual merits of it - it will essentially lead to a lot of teams treading water at around 1400-1600 TV for several seasons before dropping lower to rebuild as they finally lose the stars+ they were keeping hold of. For some rosters/races this will be less of an issue than others; and I suspect you would see what people might consider right now a sweetspotted (or even minmaxed) roster for some races become the complete normalcy. As well might rinse/repeat of teams rather than continue depending on the structure surrounding the team.
It is in effect "soft-aging". The thing is, it may very well be necessary to have a level of attrition. |
_________________
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it shouldn't be used and I did intend that discussion. I think it could be positive and a good change for R and/or B. I just meant I'm not saying 'this is definitely what we should do' like it's the only option or necessatily better than the current situation. I think it could be good, but I aren't championing it as the one truth.
In fact, I pretty much agree with what PurpleChest said. I think the shakeup could be fun and interesting. I like the idea of the divisions being around a certain TV and think the change to team meta could be good. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 22:41 |
|
Sure, that's fine, the issue for me would be trying to shoehorn it into/onto existing structure. I don't think it'll work inside what's already present.
But that said, this is one rule that if implemented would not simply operate in isolation from all others. There's a lot more to consider than just "teams play for X games".
[edit] As an example, the changes to the inducement phase (along with abolishment of petty cash) are tempered by having the re-draft and expensive mistakes... you can quite simply transfer from treasury for inducements which (even as overdog) are not added to your tv. Having to re-draft and/or potentially suffering the expensive mistakes rule are there to make you think twice about simply blowing your cash on inducements. If you've got a team that doesn't actually have scheduled obligations to fill later, you could pull the trigger on a game and then retire/repeat the team afterwards.
There's a lot going on here. |
_________________
Last edited by ArrestedDevelopment on %b %27, %2016 - %23:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 22:54 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | Sorry, I didn't mean to say it shouldn't be used and I did intend that discussion. I think it could be positive and a good change for R and/or B. I just meant I'm not saying 'this is definitely what we should do' like it's the only option or necessatily better than the current situation. I think it could be good, but I aren't championing it as the one truth.
In fact, I pretty much agree with what PurpleChest said. I think the shakeup could be fun and interesting. I like the idea of the divisions being around a certain TV and think the change to team meta could be good. |
Fun for who? Not people like me that have spent tons of time building cool teams for years almost daily.
B and R are cool because they don't function like a league. Because you can let your TV float. Because you can really go nuts.
New meta will be there regardless of the season management options. |
|
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 23:05 |
|
It would be interesting to rebuild teams around a core of players after the major season (say season starts and ends with the fumbbl cup). But it would means that any team who hasn't played ebough games in that period gets mostly dismantled, while teams that have been very active will have no problem rebuying due to the 10 extra k for every game played.
Linking it to a number of games played would basically become a TV threshold, and how many games is the right amount?
The mechanic is interesting, getting it tuned for R and B looks problematic tho.
Let's wait and see if the perpetual environment is addressed in future installments. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 23:09 |
|
| Uedder wrote: |
The mechanic is interesting, getting it tuned for R and B looks problematic tho.
|
And that's okay. |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 23:26 |
|
I agree with some of what goo and others wrote, but I did want to respond to this:
| PurpleChest wrote: | But the idea of the main competitive division being one where no team has played more than 20 games without a reset, or teams coming to majors on 19/20 games. Of just about every team listed to play being reasonably close in TV.
That interests me. Admittedly I pretty much play B this way now.
I am just not sure I want it enforced on R/B. But do think the changes may be so huge as to make FUMBBL a backwater of retrogaming if we don't try to absorb them.
|
I agree that ignoring the new rules is not (IMHO) a long-term viable option. I have not fully absorbed the changes, but my first gut reaction would be to let R/B continue as is - a wonderful sandbox for major team development and casual play. But we could remove all ranking from them (let the majors and overall team records speak for themselves, and there are the star player lists and so on for those who want to track glory)... and turn a season division using the new rules as the place where coach rank/whatever comes into play.
I think that might actually make R/B somewhat more fun for casual folks to play in, because it is likely to remove those folks who are chasing stats at the exclusion of what many among us might call fluff (or some would translate this as "fun"). Let R/B have their Major glory, and ship those who want to duke it out on the bleeding edge to a new division that follows the bleeding edge rules (which let's be honest: may well get tweaked again via errata before the dust settles).
There would be a danger of fragmenting the community, and maybe the above has some flaws, but it's my instant-react to having read through various things once. Personally, I'm not convinced of the overall balance of the new set, but CRP has some gaping balance holes too so I'm willing to assume the season rules were playtested enough to be interesting and to give it a go. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 23:37 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | But the idea of the main competitive division being one where no team has played more than 20 games without a reset, or teams coming to majors on 19/20 games. Of just about every team listed to play being reasonably close in TV.
That interests me. Admittedly I pretty much play B this way now.
I am just not sure I want it enforced on R/B. But do think the changes may be so huge as to make FUMBBL a backwater of retrogaming if we don't try to absorb them.
So that's why I'd build something new, and see what happens in it. This has also been Christer habit in the past. |
Good point here / good earlier post (added to / agreed with by others). I started on 'what would we do with a blank piece of paper?' and then misspoke a bit by bringing an R & B and a rejig into it. I agree it would be Christer-esq to set up something new, and the hope / dream would be that our numbers shoot up again to a point that we can support people playing whatever BB they like.
I think you got your reasoned debate, Mr. J. As someone that's been compulsively inhaling the Blood Bowl Internet this last three days (and that isn't particularly pretty as a job lot), it's nice to see it can be done.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
