Evilo
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 04:58 |
 
|
The blood bowl-2016 rules introduce the idea that you pick three players for the mvp selection and then roll a d3 to randomly select between these three who gets the mvp.
I was wondering, what do you think of this idea?
How would it affect teams in terms of team-developtment and tiers?
How would it affect a league like FUMBBL if something like that was implemented in the short-term and long-term? |
|
|
DrPoods
Joined: Nov 14, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 06:02 |
|
I'll tell ya one thing. 3 big buy Pact just became fascinating... 
I see it really being a boon to Lizardmen. If a coach plays Slann it could be great for blitzers as well. |
_________________
"Gallifrey falls no more"
Do your part! Join the Adoption Agency NOW! |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 08:03 |
|
Yeah, many teams will really like this, no matter if you're going more "rule for five" style (few highly skilled players) or "team team" style (broadly skilled team).
Will make team building more fun, especially for more occasional players. I hope it will be implemented on FUMBBL and look forward to it.  |
_________________
.
 |
|
paradocks
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 08:17 |
|
I'm an occasional player but I absolutely hate the idea of being able to funnel all the MVPs onto key players. Takes fun and fluffiness away and replaces it with boring cookie cutting minmaxness.
I'd compare it to using cheat codes in a computer game; there's no satisfaction in the achieving. |
|
|
Naru1981
Joined: Jan 01, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 08:18 |
|
wouldn't be too bad if say, can only nominate each player every other game |
_________________
 |
|
kwèk
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 09:43 |
|
I don't really see a reason that it would be bad?
Why would it be bad... it takes away some of the randomness for team construction. It also works for everyone.
Gives teams with less AG a bit more chance of upgrading key players. Like "Flesh Gollems" and "Sauri". Since they are pretty hard to develop.
AG 4 teams just score with whatever they want.
AG 3 teams kinda have the same option.
But skilling Sauri in a league sometimes takes forever.
I find it strange that there is less naging about the loss of a SPP roll on 125+ SPP
(acording to deathzone season 1 page 21)
It just skips the 125 SPP , and goes from 75+ to 175+.
Or did I miss something again? |
_________________
It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder'.
~Aldous Huxley~ |
|
akaRenton
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 09:45 |
|
| kwèk wrote: | I don't really see a reason that it would be bad?
Why would it be bad... it takes away some of the randomness for team construction. It also works for everyone.
Gives teams with less AG a bit more chance of upgrading key players. Like "Flesh Gollems" and "Sauri". Since they are pretty hard to develop.
AG 4 teams just score with whatever they want.
AG 3 teams kinda have the same option.
But skilling Sauri in a league sometimes takes forever.
I find it strange that there is less naging about the loss of a SPP roll on 125+ SPP
(acording to deathzone season 1 page 21)
It just skips the 125 SPP , and goes from 75+ to 175+.
Or did I miss something again? |
Yes, you did. There is no 125 skill up in CRP either. |
_________________
Dirty Cranberries - All zombie funtimes
Fumbbl Image Library - Free images to make logos, player bio pics etc |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
We've used the D3 MVP for a while in a tabletop league and it works really well for that format. It means in the early games of a fresh season you can usually skill a player each game by spreading your SPPs about a bit. Eg. If in game 1 if I have one player get a cas, one a comp and one score a TD I'm guaranteed a skill roll. This is good for fresh teams during new leagues. How it translates to perpetual league meta-gaming remains to be seen...  |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
Last edited by mister__joshua on %b %23, %2017 - %09:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 09:50 |
|
| paradocks wrote: | I'm an occasional player but I absolutely hate the idea of being able to funnel all the MVPs onto key players. Takes fun and fluffiness away and replaces it with boring cookie cutting minmaxness.
I'd compare it to using cheat codes in a computer game; there's no satisfaction in the achieving. |
Well, I think those who let their teams grow "naturally" will simply nominate those player who are close to skilling. Those who min-max will use it like you said, but those are also the coaches who will likely fire any zombie, skink or linerat that skills without "permission". This new rule makes team building easier for everyone.
It also allows for own "rules": No one says, you can't always nominate the player who earned the last MVP plus two players with the least MVP awards or something like that. Or just "cycle" through your team. Or roll dice for the nomination.
Sure, some random developments (like a lineman getting 5 MVPs in a row and therefor skilling much faster, rolling stat upgrades etc.) will happen much less, but on the other side, there are no "wasted" (albeit sometimes fluffy) MVP awards for dead players, mercenaries, stars or players who already reached Legend state.
I'm a big fan of random events in BB in general, but those events I can easily sacrifice for the MVP becoming a partly reliable tool for team building and reducing the frustration if that one Black Orc simply doesn't want to skill (which can still happen).
I totally see how you and others hate/dislike it though. |
_________________
.
|
|
kwèk
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 10:01 |
|
| akaRenton wrote: |
Yes, you did. There is no 125 skill up in CRP either. |
Nagging about it... has been long over due then  |
_________________
It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder'.
~Aldous Huxley~ |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 11:18 |
|
No more wasting a re roll on that 5spp beastman failing a pass/catch on turn 2!
Teams of the same race may start looking similar which is meh. But it sucks much more to get MVP's on the zombie fodder x games in a row.
Getting skills on the player you want to get the skills on earlier decreases variance and grinding, which is surely a good thing.
It actually decreases min maxing advantage because the 100 game minmax teams (with the skills on the players they want) don't get such an advantage over the 16 game teams.
It will advantage some races more than others, but those slow bashy races are going to need that advantage when piling on goes.
Overall, surely this is a good thing.
BUT as always I have a better solution that won't be implemented: It would actually be a better solution for fluff and life, if the player who scored the most touchdowns, did the most blocks, caused the most cas, etc etc got the MVP mathematically based on how he played in the game. A bit like how Fantasy football calculates bonus points for players.
It's retarded that the guy who sits on the bench all game gets the MVP randomly. |
_________________
 |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 11:58 |
|
| kwèk wrote: | | I don't really see a reason that it would be bad? |
Because it's fun. And some people think BB should be all suffering and no fun. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 12:11 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | It's retarded that the guy who sits on the bench all game gets the MVP randomly. |
This technically can't happen, to get the MVP you need to get fielded at least one turn. But I get what you mean
Anyway, I have a general good vibe about the D3 MVP, but with only a small caveat. There are occasional extraordinary players that are born from a random MVP that will never exist with a D3 MVP. Talking about those linemen that roll +AG after a MVP and become some great player and asset for the team.
If the rule gets implemented, together with how TV rewards builds like the rule of 5, fodder positionals will lose any hope to becom significant players. |
_________________
 |
|
Raughri
Joined: Oct 11, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 12:14 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | if the player who scored the most touchdowns, did the most blocks, caused the most cas, etc etc got the MVP mathematically based on how he played in the game. A bit like how Fantasy football calculates bonus points for players. |
How would you keep track and implement that in a table top environment? Which is where the rules are created for. |
|
|
kwèk
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jan 23, 2017 - 12:17 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | kwèk wrote: | | I don't really see a reason that it would be bad? |
Because it's fun. And some people think BB should be all suffering and no fun. |
good point...
I'm going to write a letter to Games Workshop asking to make CPOMB just one general skill.
(At least stunty races can't get it without throwing doubles!) |
_________________
It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder'.
~Aldous Huxley~ |
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
