Bascrebolder
Joined: Nov 19, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:04 |
 
|
Hello to all you fellow coaches,
I have been reading almost all the topics discussed here and thought about bloodbowl in general a lot last weeks. I think a lot of discussions boil down to the "fact" that in an open league bashing teams have an advantage over agile teams. In my oppinion this is caused by the lack of reward that winning the match has.
True a wood-elf team has lots of potential and possibly a one-turner as well. True they might win even if down in numbers. But in the long run there will be a match that will more or less ruin their team.
I think the only way to reduce the unwillingness of agile teams to play bashy teams is to make winning more important. As it is the only impact of winning (not scoring td's) on team development is a larger chance to gain FF and +10k to winnings.
A typical agile vs bashy match can end up in a 3-2 win for the agiles but at a loss (killed or maimed) of at least one player. The possible +FF and the 10k just aren't worth it!
As a result I would really like to see more advantage going to the winner. Either by giving the winner an additional MVP or giving him more cash (2d6 winnings?) or something else. An additional side-effect is that teams will try to win even if they have to take danger in doing so...
I would like to hear all your comments on my ideas... |
|
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:14 |
|
1. Give 2 MVP's per match. Both goes to the winner, in the case of a draw they get one each. No player can get 2 MVP's in one match.
2. Subtract 1 from the loosers winnings and add that to the winners. Any negative result is treated as 0 winnings. |
|
|
nickb2612
Joined: Mar 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:17 |
|
I think the point here is that the Ranked division is supposed (correct me if i'm wrong) to follow the latest LRB/Rules review (with obvious time allowences for SkiJunkie to change the client) so the problem with your idea is the deviation from the rules.
Don't get me wrong I understand what you are saying but Ranked is supposed an open division, so if people don't want to play bashy teams with their elves e.t.c they don't have to.
Remember that Coach Rating and, to a certain extent, the championship standings are present in Ranked to act as an incentive to win. Changing this too much will turn Ranked into a whole different beast.
Tournaments are the best way to go if you want to to play in a league situation which forces all races to play each other. Check out Browrob's Premiership idea for what I mean. |
|
|
SixFootDwarf
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:23 |
|
Well put. Not a bad idea in theory. Reality is a bit different, though. I don't know how we'd go about such a radical change, though and it'd involve quite a few elements that would without question come under fire from just about everyone.
1. Would it invole the BBRC, or just be a Fumbbl/JavaBowl thing?
-If BBRC, that's a whole other ugly can of worms, and SLOW, indecisive worms at that.
-If just JavaBowl, there'd have to be a huge vote, Ski would have to reprogram the client, and there'd be endless debate.
2. What if a super basher or mutated team wins almost all it's games through mutilation and/or "cherrypicking"?
-he'd get all the SPPs that they normally do, PLUS an extra MVP and more money?? No way!
Sadly, I think idea would make the problem WORSE, not better. It wouldn't really remove fouling because it'd still be a good tactic to get a man-advantage and it would actually encourage a team to crush you and stall to INSURE the win...and the bonuses. Super Bashers already have an advantage...giving them an extra MVP and/or more money would make them insane.
Sorry. Bad idea. |
|
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:28 |
|
Sadly thats probably right. |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:29 |
|
And you think noobs get picked on now.. ouchies... |
_________________
 |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:37 |
|
I think that changing the rules to accomodate a perceived league problem is a bad precedent. There's also the small matter of the actual intention of FUMBBL as created and the goal of following the rulebook as closely as possible. I won't dwell on that, however.
I think that the very small and very rare problem of coaches playing for non-standard goals is a small price to pay for having an open division. It really is extraordinarily rare to find someone who doesn't actually try to win. I won't deny that it does happen - it has happened to me - but it is very infrequent. Just like it's polar opposite, cherrypicking, this is the price of being able to play whomever we want, whenever we want.
It seems well worth it to me. Imagine how much more complaining we'd have if every match was scheduled and we had 15,000 coaches all around the world trying to adhere to that schedule. Logistical nightmare, right? Don't you think that the same people who take advantage of the Open system would find ways to complain about the seeding algorithm and such? Those would be the costs of an alternative system. I think we got off pretty easy.
That said, I know it's annoying... but it's not a big enough problem to influence the overall good of the league, if you ask me. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:45 |
|
Not trying to pick on you here, 6'... you just happened to bring up a few points...
| SixFootDwarf wrote: | | 1. Would it invole the BBRC, or just be a Fumbbl/JavaBowl thing? ... |
We really don't have a whole lot of say in what the BBRC does. Despite our numbers and the guest appearances by Galak and Babs, I don't think we're considered much more than a vocal minority by the BBRC. I could be waaay off base on this. I've actually given up on TBB and the GW forums because people were just too annoying. This observations is based solely upon what I read into comments made back when I did read such things.
| Quote: | | -If just JavaBowl, there'd have to be a huge vote, Ski would have to reprogram the client, and there'd be endless debate. |
Well, no. We could take a huge vote and yet Ski doesn't have to do anything about it. It's his project. We've all seen how he's added features which we've requested but his stated goal all along has been to make a LRB-compliant client. Getting a petition of 500 users and saying, "We all think you're great, but you should abandon your plan and use ours instead." just seems really disrespectful if you ask me.
Again, I'm not trying to imply any malice on your behalf, 6'dwarf. Your comments just made me think of a few of my pet peeves and I wanted to note them. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 17:54 |
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | | I think that changing the rules to accomodate a perceived league problem is a bad precedent. |
Not only a bad precedent, but most likely a disaster having the opposite effect from what is desired, as SixFootDwarf mentioned.
It brings to mind a terrible 'house rule' that was implemented in a tabletop league I particiapted in years ago: Allowing teams to use their RR to force opposing coaches to reroll armour/injury rolls (i.e. to make them try and fail one they had passed), which was done to 'help softer teams'
Of course, it was the bash teams who ulitmately benefitted - low AV teams blew all their RR on trying to make MB miss an AV roll on thier star elf - only to have it suceed next turn for a horrid injury half the time, while high AV bash teams managed to pretty well avoid damage altogether by nullifying the few lucky AV breaks soft teams did manange to get.
I can see how this would backfire in the same way, just like SFD said. Bash teams would bash harder to make extra-extra sure they win, and get more powerful faster as a result. So in the end, AG teams would still pick around them like mad most of the time. And even the softer teams would probably start to bash more, choosing MB on doubles and DP on linemen since the man advantage that those skills can give would benefit them more in the long term... |
|
|
SixFootDwarf
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 22:53 |
|
No worries, Mojo. Valid points all. I meant "have to reprogram" not as a command, but as a inconvienience (sp?). Which IMO he's inconvienienced himself enough already by doing all of this. If he never did another thing he'd still be a God.
You may be right about the BBRC because you've probably had more experience with TBB. I quit visiting that den of freaks years ago. Anything you say is picked apart like jackals over a carcass. And a carcass is pretty much what you're left with.  That and guys (including Galak and Chet) who, if it were up to them, would so radically change the game that it'd be unplayable. And the rulebook would be bigger than the 40k one.
I think we here have a bit more influence than you think, though. I've heard a lot of "purists" say they dislike the online game for any number of reasons (are more into the miniatures side, like seeing the dice, paranoia over the RNG, etc...), but there's just TOO MANY people playing online for it NOT to have a voice "at court". Plus there's some serious good coaches online. I thought I was pretty superior until I started here! 
You're right about tinkering for the sake of tinkering. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...and it's not broke. I abhore change. You can't legislate perfection...Fummbl is so big SOMEone is bound to screw it up.  |
|
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 23:22 |
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | We really don't have a whole lot of say in what the BBRC does. Despite our numbers and the guest appearances by Galak and Babs, I don't think we're considered much more than a vocal minority by the BBRC. I could be waaay off base on this. I've actually given up on TBB and the GW forums because people were just too annoying. This observations is based solely upon what I read into comments made back when I did read such things.
|
You're right on target. What goes on here has very little effect on what kind of decision will come out of the BBRC. There's no point arguing with these rule gurus, they're always going to come back at you with the same crap just because they think they're right. And the idiots who suck up to them will gang up on you if you try to contradict them.
In the worst case, they can always fall back on the good old "Oh, we will test it for 6 months and then come back to you" and hope the argument dies off. In the end, JJ & co. will do whatever the hell they want, end of story. The poor peasants of Fumbbl live under tirany. What a shame.  |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2005 - 23:28 |
|
Besides, this rule would kill Elves. If you get bashed, and you lose, you'll never have cash t orecover. High AV teams will rule more. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Bascrebolder
Joined: Nov 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2005 - 09:16 |
|
First of all thanks a lot for all the replies. I understand that the changes I proposed aren’t the ideal solution to the problem I think is existing in the way BB functions now. Just let me explain myself a little bit more though:
1. I do not want to force people into playing matches. I love the open nature of FUMBBL
2. Even if we cannot change things directly we can still discuss possible changes we think would improve the game.
Because I do think there is a problem when agility teams have a structural disadvantage compared to
bashing teams. We agree on that don’t we? Why else would so many coaches avoid bashing teams in
the first place? So I’m very curious what solutions you can come up with… (getting td spp’s up to 4 per
td?) |
|
|
AvatarDM
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2005 - 10:52 |
|
Well, agility teams don't necessarily have a disadvantage compared to strength teams, they just don't cause that many injuries but have an easier time to score and get some extra SPP (like a pass). People are just afraid that one of their players might get hurt. |
|
|
xen7ric
Joined: Jan 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2005 - 11:00 |
|
I tend to think that the simplest way to increase the importance of match winning is to use groups and run tournaments among friends / small groups of teams with similar ratings.
EDIT -
More tournaments of a set length = requirement to play games to win on scoreline. And you can force everyone to play everyone.
It doesn't penalise bashing teams to much because it's real hard to win a championship with a 6 player team.. (trust me, my Skaven have won games that ended with 4 players on the pitch and all the rest KO'd or Injured, it's great fun as long as not to many people die). |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
