26 coaches online • Server time: 10:56
* * * Did you know? Up until now, 1485932 players have died on the pitch.
Recent Forum Topics  Secret Stunty Cup - ... | DIBBL Awards | Blood Bowl 2024 Edit... |
2015-12-09 04:58:50
14 votes, rating 3.9
14 votes, rating 3.9
Embracing Imbalance
Blood Bowl is intentionally imbalanced. Go back a read that sentence again. Think about it for a bit. I can wait. Ready to move on?
The idea that a designer would intentionally make a game where some choices are just better was far outside my "box" a few weeks ago. Then I start playing Blood Bowl and I asked a question, "Are Secret Weapons Just Bad?" and got an unexpected answer: Yes, Blood Bowl is intentionally imbalanced. My reactions went through a rapid change.
So why am I starting to accept imbalance? Blood Bowl is a better game for it. Now there are exceptions, but in most cases it leads to interesting game play. Specifically, I spectated a Vampire game. Vampires have great stats, a great ability in hypnotic gaze, and a brutal downside in blood lust. Nothing about them seems balanced. Since I don't see forums with topics like "10 reasons to Nerf Vamps," I am left to assume that the team a bit below the average power level (as intended). Despite this, they change the game enough that standard Blood Bowl tactics must be altered.
Please note that I am not saying all imbalance is good. Rather imbalance is something that can be used to introduce something radically different (like hypnotic gaze) and therefore increase diversity. The minmaxers will ignore something that is significantly worse than most other choices, but other players will have some fun with it occasionally. Secret weapons are a great example of this. Other coaches want a challenge and will choose a team like Halflings. The try-hard coaches don't care as long as these bad choices are known (not traps).
The real problem with imbalance comes when a choice is significantly above the power curve, but that is a topic for another time. Until then, find a way to win with something less than optimal.
Sal-utations
The idea that a designer would intentionally make a game where some choices are just better was far outside my "box" a few weeks ago. Then I start playing Blood Bowl and I asked a question, "Are Secret Weapons Just Bad?" and got an unexpected answer: Yes, Blood Bowl is intentionally imbalanced. My reactions went through a rapid change.
- Shock
- Disgust
- Denial
- Confusion
- Curiosity
- Acceptance?
So why am I starting to accept imbalance? Blood Bowl is a better game for it. Now there are exceptions, but in most cases it leads to interesting game play. Specifically, I spectated a Vampire game. Vampires have great stats, a great ability in hypnotic gaze, and a brutal downside in blood lust. Nothing about them seems balanced. Since I don't see forums with topics like "10 reasons to Nerf Vamps," I am left to assume that the team a bit below the average power level (as intended). Despite this, they change the game enough that standard Blood Bowl tactics must be altered.
Please note that I am not saying all imbalance is good. Rather imbalance is something that can be used to introduce something radically different (like hypnotic gaze) and therefore increase diversity. The minmaxers will ignore something that is significantly worse than most other choices, but other players will have some fun with it occasionally. Secret weapons are a great example of this. Other coaches want a challenge and will choose a team like Halflings. The try-hard coaches don't care as long as these bad choices are known (not traps).
The real problem with imbalance comes when a choice is significantly above the power curve, but that is a topic for another time. Until then, find a way to win with something less than optimal.
Sal-utations
Comments
Posted by pythrr on 2015-12-09 04:59:44
water is wet
dive on in sir, the swimming is lovely!
dive on in sir, the swimming is lovely!
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-12-09 06:43:31
It's the realism factor. A team of Halflings would never be balanced vs a team of Orcs. So if you aren't from the GW gaming world, then you've missed out on one of the key factors of the game. Trying to portray and make the game as believable as possible.
Also there's the point of the better a player is, the more he should play weaker races against coaches with less skill or experience.
BB was never meant to be as competitive as it is today.
Your views tend to be fairly catergorical in concept. Even though you are intelligent and obvious are pretty good, you lack experience to do so in my opinion.
Also there's the point of the better a player is, the more he should play weaker races against coaches with less skill or experience.
BB was never meant to be as competitive as it is today.
Your views tend to be fairly catergorical in concept. Even though you are intelligent and obvious are pretty good, you lack experience to do so in my opinion.
Posted by Jeffro on 2015-12-09 08:34:53
... but since it's a blog, it's kind of like a public journal that you let people comment on, so tally-ho!
Posted by coombz on 2015-12-09 08:49:02
thank god that harvestmouse the content nazi is here to let everyone know what they should or should not post on FUMBBL
Posted by PaddyMick on 2015-12-09 10:00:08
imbalance all menz!
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-09 10:48:14
For a game to be truely interesting the focus has to be on making different strategies equally interesting to approach to create a healthy and diverse environment.
The best way to make people pick diverse is balance. It is not the only way tho. For instance if a race has more appealing fluff you may want to make it weaker to create overall choice balance. Of course it would be better to balance your fluff along with the game play since otherwise you'll just limit the choices of people who are into fluff and of those who aren't.
The best way to make people pick diverse is balance. It is not the only way tho. For instance if a race has more appealing fluff you may want to make it weaker to create overall choice balance. Of course it would be better to balance your fluff along with the game play since otherwise you'll just limit the choices of people who are into fluff and of those who aren't.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-12-09 11:44:49
Well coombz at least I add something to the site. On other hand their are some negative ****s who add nothing.
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-09 12:01:26
Yeah imbalance. But it's not a matter of good/bad, as really different optimizatons. Secret weapons aren't just plain bad, because they can win you a game you would otherwise have no chance of winning. They're just tricky. And somewhat unreliable, and people usually consider unreliable as bad. So with vamps. They can be strong in the right hands. They can also be awful tho. It's a balanced unbalance, where anything has pros and cons. Av7 for example is bad, but pair it with ma8 and ag4 and you got an impressive player. I'd say there are 3 levels of teams in blood bowl: Real good teams, Real bad teams, and so-so teams. Most fall in the latter category. The only true unbalance is a design failure and it's clawpomb.
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-09 14:15:28
Imbalance is bad because it drastically reduces variety, most people will lean towards the best teams (people generally like to win, not to lose with a hopeless tier 3 team vs a top tier 1 team).
Make all team balanced (balanced intended as 50% win rate vs any other team) and the variety will increase.
The game will be better and the match ups more different instead of lot of minmaxed strong teams at low TV and lot of super clawpomb abusers at high TV.
Only idiots can't see that a balanced game is better than an unbalanced game.
Make all team balanced (balanced intended as 50% win rate vs any other team) and the variety will increase.
The game will be better and the match ups more different instead of lot of minmaxed strong teams at low TV and lot of super clawpomb abusers at high TV.
Only idiots can't see that a balanced game is better than an unbalanced game.
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-09 14:21:23
Then i must be a bloody idiot because i love to play my gobbros in the box :)
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-09 14:22:50
Goblins should have rostered bribes.
They would still be bad but less unplayable.
They would still be bad but less unplayable.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2015-12-09 14:52:05
@MattDakka: I disagree, because the game has more dimensions than just being competative. More variety and diversity are good obviously, but having 'teirs' of races is a kind of diversity in itself.
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-09 16:20:19
Yeah bloodbowl was never meant to be played in blackbox by overly competitive super Expert coaches. It was meant to be played in leagues where you might have rookies and veterans. Tiers make much more sense in that way. Let rookies grab tier one and veterans take suboptimal races so we all have fun. Same for tournaments.
Most people prefer a hard fought loss rather than a walk in the park win. Leagues live longer that way.
The fact that bb is still enjoyable in our kind of perpetual competitive League is just a sign of how good its concept and rules are. Not perfect but damn great imo.
Most people prefer a hard fought loss rather than a walk in the park win. Leagues live longer that way.
The fact that bb is still enjoyable in our kind of perpetual competitive League is just a sign of how good its concept and rules are. Not perfect but damn great imo.
Posted by koadah on 2015-12-09 16:20:39
Goblins being bad isn't what kills diversity. A bigger issue is people wanting to mostly use bash.
Particularly CPOMB =)
Elves have decent enough win%s. 50%? probably better than that. People don't seem to be rushing to play them in the Box though. Who is the idiot? :)
Particularly CPOMB =)
Elves have decent enough win%s. 50%? probably better than that. People don't seem to be rushing to play them in the Box though. Who is the idiot? :)
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-09 17:01:02
Goblins are just a proof of how it's really the blackbox format making them so bad rather than the rules. Rostered bribes? Good for box, but in a League/tournament you can esily manage your tv to get the inducements you need.
While still not being the best team, I guess goblins, properly managed by a good coach, will be far closer to that 50% mark in a League than they are in box.
They are close to unplayable in box (and not actually that bad as rookies). That's a box problem. But not unplayable at all.
We all remember rookie goblins making it to a major semi, do we? How is that unplayable?
It's the box environment that pains them, otherwise they're a fun, suboptimal but still competitive, fun crazy team to play. Exactly what they were meant to be.
While still not being the best team, I guess goblins, properly managed by a good coach, will be far closer to that 50% mark in a League than they are in box.
They are close to unplayable in box (and not actually that bad as rookies). That's a box problem. But not unplayable at all.
We all remember rookie goblins making it to a major semi, do we? How is that unplayable?
It's the box environment that pains them, otherwise they're a fun, suboptimal but still competitive, fun crazy team to play. Exactly what they were meant to be.
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-09 18:13:49
Come on, how many Goblins do you see in the Box?
And with which win rate?
About veterans playing vs rookies in leagues: no need to have joke teams, any team can be handicapped by simply not buying rrs, positionals, apothecary and competitive coaches still play tier 1 teams in leagues as well.
Competitive coaches like to win, so unplayable teams won't be used enough to justify their existence.
Do you see bghandras (the best Black Box coach) playing tier 3 teams in the Box? Ask yourself why.
If the best coach plays only tier 1 teams why worse coaches should play tier 3 teams? It would be absolutely illogic.
@harvestmouse: about the realism factor, why the Humans, according to the fluff the most winning race, are so bad actually in the game and absolutely not the best of the races?
And with which win rate?
About veterans playing vs rookies in leagues: no need to have joke teams, any team can be handicapped by simply not buying rrs, positionals, apothecary and competitive coaches still play tier 1 teams in leagues as well.
Competitive coaches like to win, so unplayable teams won't be used enough to justify their existence.
Do you see bghandras (the best Black Box coach) playing tier 3 teams in the Box? Ask yourself why.
If the best coach plays only tier 1 teams why worse coaches should play tier 3 teams? It would be absolutely illogic.
@harvestmouse: about the realism factor, why the Humans, according to the fluff the most winning race, are so bad actually in the game and absolutely not the best of the races?
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-09 18:24:20
Matt it's blackbox's problem. Not goblins'. Blood bowl is not blackbox nor was it meant for that kind of environment.
Goblins being on par with other races fails their design problem.
Goblins being on par with other races fails their design problem.
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-09 18:30:16
Goblins suck in leagues as well, less than in Box but they still suck.
Posted by akaRenton on 2015-12-09 19:58:03
I didn't really enjoy playing until I switched to mostly playing as badly imbalanced teams for the giggles. Now I love it and have played about 150 games with one fling side, and almost 400 with a team entirely made of zombies. I like to think the variety available means everyone can find a way to play that works for them.
Posted by Arktoris on 2015-12-10 00:52:15
Some people like a challenge. Some people like paint by numbers. Some people like to outwit their opponent. Some people like to dominate their opponent. Some people want a team that's great straight out of the box. Some people want a team that's great only after building up.
bloodbowl gives us teams that satisfy all.
bloodbowl gives us teams that satisfy all.
Posted by xnoelx on 2015-12-10 02:19:02
"Do you see bghandras (the best Black Box coach) playing tier 3 teams in the Box? Ask yourself why.
If the best coach plays only tier 1 teams why worse coaches should play tier 3 teams? It would be absolutely illogic."
That's false logic. You're assuming that he is the best AND THUS plays tier 1. This would only be true if he was the best before he started playing B and/or with Tier 1. In fact, exactly the reverse of your assumption is much more likely.
If the best coach plays only tier 1 teams why worse coaches should play tier 3 teams? It would be absolutely illogic."
That's false logic. You're assuming that he is the best AND THUS plays tier 1. This would only be true if he was the best before he started playing B and/or with Tier 1. In fact, exactly the reverse of your assumption is much more likely.
Posted by cdassak on 2015-12-10 08:24:14
@MattDakka
The top 5 are 27/15/13 so far!
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/arr/#/sprint/175/6
I have a 26/18/27 and a 15/7/10 team.
Not saying that gobbos are top but they are not as bad as you say they are.
The top 5 are 27/15/13 so far!
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/arr/#/sprint/175/6
I have a 26/18/27 and a 15/7/10 team.
Not saying that gobbos are top but they are not as bad as you say they are.
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-10 15:34:19
Your Goblin win rate is 46%.
Any race with a win rate under 50% is an unplayable team in my book.
Any race with a win rate under 50% is an unplayable team in my book.
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-10 20:13:07
Then don't play goblins. I think part of the charm of blood bowl is its unbalance. How are goblins or halflings ever going tdeal as good as dorfs and humans ans elves? They aren't. They play against all odds and sometimes manage a win.
Again, i think they're not as bad in other formats as they are in blackbox ( and ranked unless massive picking). They are meant to be Challenging. There's plenty of other races you can look at to improve your CR anyway.
Some teams just wouldn't be as fun if they were good. Minor nerfs? Yeah i'm on it (sneaky git, secret weapons, some g acces...). Make them 50% win? No thanks!
Again, i think they're not as bad in other formats as they are in blackbox ( and ranked unless massive picking). They are meant to be Challenging. There's plenty of other races you can look at to improve your CR anyway.
Some teams just wouldn't be as fun if they were good. Minor nerfs? Yeah i'm on it (sneaky git, secret weapons, some g acces...). Make them 50% win? No thanks!
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-10 20:13:08
Then don't play goblins. I think part of the charm of blood bowl is its unbalance. How are goblins or halflings ever going tdeal as good as dorfs and humans ans elves? They aren't. They play against all odds and sometimes manage a win.
Again, i think they're not as bad in other formats as they are in blackbox ( and ranked unless massive picking). They are meant to be Challenging. There's plenty of other races you can look at to improve your CR anyway.
Some teams just wouldn't be as fun if they were good. Minor nerfs? Yeah i'm on it (sneaky git, secret weapons, some g acces...). Make them 50% win? No thanks!
Again, i think they're not as bad in other formats as they are in blackbox ( and ranked unless massive picking). They are meant to be Challenging. There's plenty of other races you can look at to improve your CR anyway.
Some teams just wouldn't be as fun if they were good. Minor nerfs? Yeah i'm on it (sneaky git, secret weapons, some g acces...). Make them 50% win? No thanks!
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-12-11 00:28:33
All races should be equally playable.
"Don't play goblins", what if you like to play Goblins AND you like to play a balanced team as well?
Of course Goblins and Halflings are not as strong as Dwarfs or Humans 1 vs 1 but their rosters should feature something to make them able to compete.
Some ideas: 3 Treemen or 2 Treemen without Take Root (horrible negatrait for such a slow player), rostered Master Chef, rostered Bribes, Tackle not negating Dodge for Stunty players, Sneaky Git working like a KO for ejected players, some AG 4 Halflings, discounted skills for Stunty players (10 TV instead of 20 TV), non-Loner Trolls, some Goblins with Dirty Player... the possibilities are many and wouldn't make them boring to play nor overpowered.
"Don't play goblins", what if you like to play Goblins AND you like to play a balanced team as well?
Of course Goblins and Halflings are not as strong as Dwarfs or Humans 1 vs 1 but their rosters should feature something to make them able to compete.
Some ideas: 3 Treemen or 2 Treemen without Take Root (horrible negatrait for such a slow player), rostered Master Chef, rostered Bribes, Tackle not negating Dodge for Stunty players, Sneaky Git working like a KO for ejected players, some AG 4 Halflings, discounted skills for Stunty players (10 TV instead of 20 TV), non-Loner Trolls, some Goblins with Dirty Player... the possibilities are many and wouldn't make them boring to play nor overpowered.