119 coaches online • Server time: 22:17
* * * Did you know? The number of matches played is 2320811.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Ball carrier Ogre 4t...goto Post Road to the NAF Cham...goto Post NBFL S18 Draft Previ...
Last seen 45 minutes ago
Wood Elf
Super Star
Wood Elf
Win Percentage
Super Star
Win Percentage
Win Percentage



2016-12-31 19:34:42
rating 4.8
2016-12-30 18:32:43
rating 5.4
2016-12-20 18:54:13
rating 6
2016-12-20 18:14:15
rating 6
2016-12-09 18:23:49
rating 4.8
2016-12-05 21:37:47
rating 4.3
2016-11-29 07:15:17
rating 6
2016-11-21 22:10:04
rating 6
2016-11-15 07:25:25
rating 5.5
2016-11-07 22:17:08
rating 4
2016-11-03 23:18:30
rating 4.3
2016-10-27 03:58:30
rating 3.2
2016-10-25 18:07:25
rating 4.8
2016-10-17 18:11:56
rating 5.2
2016-10-11 18:45:59
rating 6
2016-10-05 22:53:15
rating 4.5
2016-10-01 05:24:45
rating 3.1
2016-09-25 06:39:44
rating 4.6
2016-09-20 21:12:16
rating 4.6
2016-09-13 23:41:51
rating 5
2016-09-09 00:48:24
rating 4.8
2016-09-06 21:10:42
rating 4.3
2016-08-30 23:32:00
rating 4.4
2016-08-21 21:07:23
rating 4.6
2016-08-20 21:15:39
rating 4.8
2016-08-17 20:43:00
rating 4.8
2016-08-10 18:15:29
rating 4.8
2016-08-05 23:41:05
rating 4.4
2016-08-03 08:56:24
rating 5.6
2016-08-03 05:41:41
rating 5
2016-07-26 20:12:46
rating 5.3
2016-07-20 01:13:03
rating 6
2016-07-12 18:49:38
rating 6
2016-07-05 22:07:54
rating 4.8
2016-06-28 18:51:00
rating 5.3
2016-06-14 18:26:44
rating 4.8
2016-06-11 19:51:53
rating 4.6
2016-05-29 20:26:33
rating 4.6
2016-05-23 22:48:59
rating 4.5
2016-05-11 18:39:31
rating 5
2016-04-01 01:15:45
rating 4.9
2016-02-26 22:34:35
rating 3.4
2016-02-22 20:19:28
rating 4.1
2016-02-15 02:09:24
rating 4.3
2016-02-11 18:40:07
rating 4.6
2016-01-31 20:08:12
rating 5.5
2016-01-27 01:09:34
rating 6
2016-01-20 02:49:09
rating 5.7
2016-01-17 02:54:39
rating 5.9
2016-01-14 20:55:49
rating 4.8
2016-01-05 08:10:17
rating 5.7
2016-01-01 21:26:10
rating 5.4


2015-12-31 21:19:59
rating 5.2
2015-12-19 05:25:43
rating 3.8
2015-12-12 19:35:34
rating 5
2015-12-04 23:38:54
rating 5.6
2015-11-19 07:49:00
rating 5.6
2015-09-24 00:04:35
rating 6
2015-09-10 22:44:25
rating 3.9
2015-08-04 06:54:01
rating 5.9
2015-07-15 04:45:36
rating 5.3
2015-07-08 23:54:18
rating 5
2015-06-30 20:28:50
rating 5.8
2015-06-29 20:33:22
rating 5.4
2015-06-28 20:00:53
rating 3.4
2015-06-04 20:19:38
rating 4.8
2015-06-01 00:52:53
rating 5.4
2015-05-30 20:55:07
rating 5
2015-05-25 20:08:41
rating 3.7
2015-05-21 23:42:18
rating 4.1
2015-05-06 06:44:37
rating 5.3
2015-04-30 23:50:11
rating 5.8
2015-04-24 06:11:36
rating 6
2015-04-09 01:02:42
rating 6
2015-04-07 21:18:40
rating 6
2015-04-06 06:49:01
rating 4.7
2015-04-01 07:00:41
rating 6
2015-03-27 03:45:05
rating 6
2015-03-01 23:29:48
rating 4.7
2015-02-13 08:01:26
rating 6
2015-01-23 08:17:38
rating 5.2
2015-01-13 06:28:47
rating 3.8
2015-01-03 00:45:53
rating 6


2014-12-14 07:52:31
rating 3.3
2014-12-09 05:51:14
rating 5.8
2014-11-27 20:20:08
rating 5.1
2014-11-25 08:03:53
rating 6
2014-11-11 08:48:13
rating 5.3
2014-10-28 17:08:26
rating 5.2
2014-10-13 01:31:15
rating 2.3
2014-10-07 19:58:27
rating 5.2
2014-10-07 06:28:14
rating 2.8
2014-10-05 04:48:11
rating 5.4
2014-10-04 00:31:55
rating 5.8
2014-09-22 02:31:47
rating 2.3
2014-09-15 07:06:58
rating 6
2014-09-15 01:16:39
rating 2.3
2014-09-11 00:06:22
rating 5.6
2014-09-07 00:05:17
rating 3.4
2014-09-05 05:57:47
rating 2.1
2014-08-13 08:48:49
rating 3.8
2014-07-03 18:48:48
rating 4.7
2014-06-12 07:39:03
rating 4.9
2016-02-12 08:09:15
11 votes, rating 5.5
Metabox Legends: Lies, Nuffling Lies and Statistics
So the idea that there are too many Legends or its too easy to build Legends surfaced in a thread on the forum and for the life of me I couldn't comprehend the argument. It was left mostly unqualified but I think the main thrust was it's too easy to build Clawpomber legends. I am sympathetic to that idea but I looked at Active Top 25 players by SPP and All Time, eliminated everyone below the Legend threshold and counted how many coaches and teams were represented among the Legendary players.

The conclusion I reached was that Legends are the product of 5 things working in harmony:

1. Coaching Time Investment, Commitment and Popularity
2. Skills to facilitate SPP accrual
3. Skills/Attributes to protect the player
4. Teams that can support them in their journey
5. Nuffle

Looking over the results it shouldn't surprise anyone that coaches who have spent a ton of time playing a team have generated several legends and thus have several players from the same team on the lists - bigGuy with Khemri and cameronhawkins with Lizardmen dominate the Legend list respectively. Kingvan is the name to know in Vampire Legends, although Azyx has the biggest one in debog. They put in tons of time with a few teams of those respective races to build them. Looking at Skaven, half the coaches have 2 entries on the All Time list. This is a little indication time playing with a team is shown as a factor in the creation of Legends.

One of the things to consider with time is that there is a bias towards some teams being unpopular because they become much more difficult the higher the TV they play. Amazons and Norse are two examples where coaches actively avoid letting the TV float which is sometimes synonymous with retirement of the team. Some coaches stick with one team and build players regardless of the team state - I'm on a few of the Top 25s in part because of my commitment to 1 team per race bar Skaven and keeping a blown apart team. My Vampires in particular have been demolished over and over again.

Another factor is the sheer popularity of certain teams results in a lengthy legend list both in Active and All Time. ARR teams have a higher incidence of 2-3 coaches having multiple legends for the same team type. CPOMB teams barring Underworld have some of the highest variety of coaches with an Active Legend represented. Wood Elves are way more popularly played than High Elf and Pro Elf and the size of the All-Time of it shows.

The 2nd factor of skill accrual is readily apparent. Both Elves and CPOMB teams should be obvious for why they get SPP - In general Elves score and pass while CPOMB does their namesake. Skaven is particularly diverse in the all time category with a Sam Axe - a Rat Ogre at #1 - and a pretty even variation of CPOMB Stormvermin and OTTD Gutter Runners rounding out the list.

One of the biggest perceived anomalies was the dearth of Dark Elf Legends. I looked at the 7, yes 7 All Time and here's what I found:
SPP Composition: CP-TD-INT-CS-MVP-Tot-Games

1 - Didaxit Iceshooter
SPP Composition: 33-40-1-33-20-321-137
Skills: +AG, Guard, +ST, +ST, Dodge, Leap

2 - El Drizzito II
SPP Composition: 31-48-1-7-10-241-92
Skills: Dodge, +AG, Leap, Sides Step, Strip Ball

3 - Isithral
SPP Comp: 79-25-0-6-6-196-83
Skills: +MA, Dodge, Nerves Of Steel, Pass, Block,+MA

4 - Aetherdark
SPP Comp: 3-12-0-59-7-192-75
Skills: Block, Mighty Blow, Piling On, Dodge, Tackle, +MA, Jump Up

5 - Hug
SPP Comp: 8-14-0-56-6-180-75
Skills: +ST, Dodge, Mighty Blow, Tackle, Side Step, Fend

6 - Frudu
SPP Comp: 6-37-0-11-8-179-74
Skills: Dodge, Side Step, Tackle, +MA, +MA, Diving Tackle

7 - Hirion
SPP Comp: 25-31-0-7-9-177-79
Skills: Dodge, Side Step, +AG, Leap, Strip Ball, Jump Up

I think what leapt out at me while reading this back was that +Stats are present on all of them but also that compared to the High Elf all time list (that's easy to compare, I just need to look at my Coca Loca for 3 of them, I'll link my spreadsheet at the end of the post so you can pour over the rest) - 6 out of 11 had MA8 or Higher along with +AG. In a small way this leads me to believe that MA8 with +AG is a great frame for working towards a legend. If we could really deep dive into this data (I wish I had more technical skills but I'm an IT manager, not an SQL or XML guru.), I would be interested to see the correlations between stats on elves and their propensity for reaching Legend.

Pro Elves similarly had at least half their Legends imbued with MA8 and +AG although one was just a +MA PITA defensive player. Elves in general are pretty cool in that they're varied enough across team type but not entirely by playstyle that we can more than guess as to the utility of different attributes in player building.

Ogres lacking General skill access to pick up Block limits the opportunities to get knockdowns as more and more players gain Block or Wrestle and Dodge as TV increases.

In the case of Gobbos, the sole non Troll Legend is a Pogoer with +ST and 5 normal skills - Surefeet, Sprint, Side Step, Catch, Diving Tackle.

The 3rd factor I mentioned was survivability. This might be seen in the low rates of active Legends for almost every AV7 team regardless of skills. Stunties? Say no more. With teams ability CPOMB whether easily or through luck like Necro, there are at LEAST, at LEAST, 135 Legends. There are so many Chaos Legends not on the Top 25 list that we can only guess the true number but...AV7 or less majority teams plus High Elves and less Vampires (there are no Thrall Legends, don't worry) only 53 are present. (Anecdotally I lost a Legend Wood Elf Catcher through a failed GFI with Sure Feet...Go Nuffle).

But lets look at another skill - Piling On. It would require a much more robust analysis than I can provide but it seems like Piling On not only results in SPP accrual but also protects players as well by taking themselves out of a reprisal block. Mostly because it's actually kind of hard to foul effectively for CAS and there are disincentives against it - baked into the mechanics of fouling and the positional peril of failing to CAS and fouling out or simply being available as a target for a reprisal block. Players with Jump Up are particularly adept at maximizing their PO usage and sometimes might even PO a KO for SPP (The Ole mrt1212 Special) Also in terms of TV efficiency for matchmaking, carrying a deep bench to foul and absorb blocks doesn't net returns unless you have <40k 0-12+ players.

+ST is another skill that not only helps with netting SPP in providing easier blocks, but it can make them a less viable target for blocks amongst the team.
Regen is obvious as is blodge in their benefits.

The 4th factor is team support. One of the negative aspects of the game is the propensity to have CAS snowball out of control. You lose a player, you lose positioning which leads to more opportunities to inflict CAS which further erodes positioning. I think one of the interesting teams in this regard is Underworld where there is the ability to have 2 CPOMBers easily but the rest of the team is tissue paper. Still they have CPOMB Legends with a few Trolls and Throwers thrown in with one nasty Gobbo too. In spite of the rest of the team you can build Legends with CPOMBers as the team crumbles around them. Teams with multiple CPOMBers can make it even easier to accrue SPP by making POs into CAS at all costs have very little downside risk and by physically eliminating reprisal blocks and fouls.

Conversely Ogres have plenty of hitting power but the team is so awful in providing support for blocks, and in protection (along with being relatively unpopular and players suffering from Boneheads.) It's simply very difficult to use POMB to get enough SPPs when you're giving up positioning that the rest of the team can't cover for and exposing yourself to fouls. Also, the snowball effect can really hit Ogres hard because as good as 6 ST5 is, it's fraught with Boneheads and blocks that don't yield knockdowns and POs.

The 5th factor is Nuffle. As I said prior I lost a Legend Wood Elf Catcher to a failed GFI with Sure Feet. That happens. I also had a Legend High Elf Catcher take a rock on a Turn 16 Kick Off (The Ole Timetis Special) and Apo from Killed to -AV. That Happens. There are countless coaches who lost a player within 3 SPP or less of hitting Legend and somehow came up short for any number of reasons.

So where am I going with this? I find notion that there "too many Legends" or "Legends are too easy to build" to be wrong based on the composition of Legends under CRP and Blackbox Matchmaking. I understand the devotion to wanting team composition to be different than the status quo because it fits with some preconceived notion of what team sports should look like. That's not a compelling enough reason in my estimation to rework the ruleset to include aging - barring major overhauls of some rosters, getting to Legend, much less Superstar for some players would be absurdly difficult.

I also contend that the issue of Legends among CPOMBers is strictly a CPOMBer problem. It combines all 5 factors gruesomely into a SPP generating machine. Devoted Coaches, with SPP generating skills, which also provide protection, and teammates are similarly capable in supporting them by lightening the load of being a target, while diminishing the opportunities for Nuffle's divine hand to strike them down.

I've stated several times that there are easy and elegant solutions to some of these issues with CPOMB. You can tweak all 4 factors:

- Make PO stun the POing player. More Opportunity Cost and exposure while limiting SPP generating opportunities.
- Give fouling more teeth and less downside risk.
- Limit CPOMB access to less players on the respective teams through making Strength access a doubles on any ST3 player with normal Mutation access. Guard Beastmen and Pestigors to support CPOMB CW and NW. Scratches SPP Generating Skills, Protection Skills and Team Support while leaving the kill stack intact. Obviously adjust player costs to reflect this.

I will repeat those ideas until all of you are vomiting out of your eyeballs with disgust at my shameless promotion of them.

Why did I even get on this kick? The future of BB rules discussion. I don't think it needs to be reinvented and have drastic changes made to it. Whatever everyone's personal ideal of what it BB should look and play like is, everything I've experienced in Box and gleaned in discussions makes me feel like a lot of ideas for improvement thrown around would function much better as a house rule or league rule. Aging, substitutions, practice squads, skill levels, splitting skills into two different ones, providing new counters to existing skills, TV measured in increments of 5 instead of 10. Again, these sound lovely for a league to fiddle with but would increase the complexity of the game in ways that would require a lot of rethinking of the game and not a lot of backwards compatibility with existing teams. One of the greatest tragedies of the move from LRB 4 to CRP to me was how it affected Ogre teams. It would be bad to have similar things happen again for FUMBBL even if years later things would settle again.

But I also question increased complexity where the learning curve to the game is already a deterrent to people adopting it especially when it comes to the metagaming of skill selection and team building. You can absolutely build yourself away from a competitive team through player purchase and skill selection - increasing the opportunity costs in this stage in the game would do a disservice to coaches who are inexperienced enough to not know better as well as coaches who aren't sociable enough to ask for help.

So yes, I spent a whole lot of time and effort at this juncture so I don't expend as much in the future repeatedly shooting down the same ideas and justifications for changing the game in drastic and unwarranted ways. I'll provide a link.

Legends, Coaches, Teams

Active: 5,4,4
All Time: 20,10,11

Active: 25,19,21
All Time: 25, 13,15

Chaos Dwarf:
Active: 25,20,22
All Time: 25,17,20

Chaos Pact:
Active: 25,21,21
All Time: 25,14,14

Dark Elf:
Active: 3,2,2
All Time: 7,5,5

Active: 24,16,18
All Time: 25,16,17

Pro Elf:
Active: 4,3,3
All Time: 9,6,6

Active: 3,2,2
All Time: 5,3,3

Active: 7,5,5
All Time: 8,5,5

High Elf:
Active: 6,4,4
All Time: 11,7,7

Active: 22,18,20
All Time: 25,14,17

Active: 9,6,8
All Time: 25,9,13

Active: 4,4,4
All Time: 25,7,10

Active: 25,18,23
All Time: 25,15,19

Active: 3,3,3
All Time: 21,16,16

Active: 25,19,20
All Time: 25,19,20

Active: 1,1,1
All Time: 1,1,1

Active: 18,12,13
All Time: 25,12,15

Active: 11,9,9
All Time: 25,13,14

Active: 4,3,3
All Time: 10,7,8

Active: 13,11,11
All Time: 25,17,17

Active: 10,9,9
All Time: 25,14,16

Active: 25,12,14
All Time: 25,7,8

Wood Elf: 7,4,4
All Time: 25,15,16

Rate this entry
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 09:18:55
I think the lack of DE legends in box is almost certainly down to their lack of overall speed in comparison to the other Elves - this affects both their ability to one-turn (a relatively common source of SPP for other Elves), and the overall approach to the game - a DE team is more likely to end up in protracted block battles. That's both by nature of their higher ability to bash in comparison to Woodies and Pro Elves, but also potentially lesser ability to sweep the ball away, or worse, flee pursuit.

Interesting to note that a number of the DE legends are team-mates.
Posted by tmoila on 2016-02-12 09:59:11
Future developement department of my teams predict a small surge in DE legends this year. Investments in that direction seem to be next natural step in the player market.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-02-12 10:04:45
Hmmmmmmm difficult to answer you actual query 'Why do some coaches feel legends are too easy to build?' as there are many factors, but I'll have a go.

*Firstly, is it a problem? No, I don't think so. It's not like Legends break the game, and getting a Legend obviously has a feel good factor. Feel good factors are positives. It is frustrating though to see blogs where a coach that's been around for a few months writes 'Finally got my first Legend' with a player that's played 30 games. This feels that the general consensus of what a Legend is, has changed. A Legend now is a shallow comparison of a Legend in the past.

*TT-FUMBBL Again in reality it's a FUMBBL problem. Or......if you make Legends to hard to build, they become impossible in TT. And the reality is that this game was made to play on the Table; not FUMBBL or Cyanide. So the balance is for a TT league. If you take 50 games to make a Legend. Play the team 6 times a month, you'll make a Legend in a little less than a year. Something to aim for, but a achievable goal. It feels an accomplishment. However 50 games on FUMBBL with a team can be done in much much less time. You could easily do this in 2 weeks. You can make Legends in less than 30 games in truth. So you could actually make a Legend in a few days. This then dilutes the accomplishment of making Legends. Not the rules fault, not the players fault, not the site faults. That's just reality.

*LRB4-CRP In LRB4 making Legends was very hard. So it was suited for FUMBBL. Where as CRP has got it about right for TT. So when all you little CRP upstarts came along and started posting about your new Legend that took a fair time to build (3 weeks).........you really got us oldtimers knickers in a twist. This isn't right. We've been playing here years and never got a Legend.

With LRB4 not only did it take longer due to spreading the spp and generally using rosters with more depth when you could. The chances of getting a fit one past his 6th skill (126spp) was very very rare. I did that once.

So to conclude.

Is it a problem? No, it isn't.

Is it too easy? Yes, it dilutes the achievement it should be with online play.

Is it more accurate of how hard a task it should be now or before? Now it's right for TT, before it was about right for FUMBBL (which was probably luck not judgment).
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 11:04:07
Requiem for the death of compassion.

You know what the problem is? Why does anyone else's "achievement" dilute your own? Especially when each "achievement" is obtained within different parameters and confines and therefor invalid for direct comparison? Ask yourself why that matters.

Application of pack animal mentality. Any achievement by another is immediately compared to personal growth and stymied by the pack. Am I being deliberately obtuse and over-bearing here? Perhaps, maybe, possibly, but the fact of the matter is that "dilution" is a false concept applied because people are drawing comparisons between finite points that exist outside of scale. I could be asking why someone would seek to limit capacity of others for "growth" (such as the mocking of people who post their first legends etc), Tall Poppy Syndrome and crab bucket mentality in full effect.

The truth of the matter is, if someone creates a legend on the fumbbl in 2 days and you do it in 10 years on a tabletop, neither of your time is wasted as long as you enjoyed yourself doing so. That's it. Plants don't compare themselves to other plants, they just grow.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-02-12 11:18:33
"You know what the problem is? Why does anyone else's "achievement" dilute your own? Especially when each "achievement" is obtained within different parameters and confines and therefor invalid for direct comparison? Ask yourself why that matters."

Well my answer is in my post.

"Firstly, is it a problem? No, I don't think so. It's not like Legends break the game, and getting a Legend obviously has a feel good factor. Feel good factors are positives."

"Application of pack animal mentality. Any achievement by another is immediately compared to personal growth and stymied by the pack. Am I being deliberately obtuse and over-bearing here? Perhaps, maybe, possibly, but the fact of the matter is that "dilution" is a false concept applied because people are drawing comparisons between finite points that exist outside of scale. I could be asking why someone would seek to limit capacity of others for "growth" (such as the mocking of people who post their first legends etc), Tall Poppy Syndrome and crab bucket mentality in full effect."

Well no 'achievements' should be difficult, otherwise it isn't an achievement. If a marathon shortened and became easy, then it's no longer the achievement it was. Is it really still a marathon? In name only, not in the achievement of completing a marathon. Therefore it becomes less and less newsworthy. The issue here is that is what has happened.

Example conversation:

A "I tried to do a marathon when I was younger but failed."
B "Ahhh really? They're easy, I do one every week."

How does A feel? How does A feel about B?

It's not a pack concept, rather the dilution of past achievements and failures. So modern Legends have a direct bearing of past Legends as they're directly compared.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 11:34:02
But they are not directly compared. Anyone who wishes to do so usually adds the caveat LRB4 or before, or calls a legend now a CRP legend. There were additional skill points and all sorts of extra issues (and even the differences between niggles).

In your example, A knows what a marathon constitutes both past and present, and therefore, will know no direct comparison can be drawn. B does not, A can either educate him on the difference, or leave him be, happy with his own achievements. But to denigrate him would suggest an inferiority complex.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2016-02-12 11:44:48
The records show Legends. They are directly compared. It's also compared in my marathon example.

Well, you are educated, you know the difference (in what they are at least). A lot are not. Also, if you've played in both forms, you are aware of how hard it is to get the achievement and therefore are qualified to give an opinion on which 'YOU' feel is right. How hard should it be to create a Legend? That's a personal judgement thing, but the more experience you have, the more qualified your opinion is.

Educating coaches is all well and good, but educating in this issue is a form of denigration (or at least being very anal).

I guess the problem maybe with the moniker 'Legend' and what that constitutes, are some of the Legends now Legendary? I don't think they are, which makes it a false moniker and dilutes the power behind the word.
Posted by CastleMan on 2016-02-12 12:10:58
I took my medicine prior to reading this. By the time I made it to the end and soaked in all the it included, my medicine had fully kicked in. Thank you for the info. May all your dodge rolls be 6.
Posted by the_Sage on 2016-02-12 12:15:20
I really thought that this would be about the CR legend label. =)
Posted by Seventyone on 2016-02-12 12:23:00
Warning, pointless side track, please feel free to ignore...

Plants do not "just grow". Like all other organisms on the planet they are locking in an endless struggle with each other for scare resources. The fact that this is harder to see than, say, a lion eating a gazelle does not make it less true.

end of pointless aside

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 12:35:57
I'm more than aware of that, it's a stupid zen joke!
Posted by Jeffro on 2016-02-12 14:57:58
I agree wholeheartedly with harvestmouse on this. Playing in an active league on FUMBBL and on tabletop, it is literally twice as many scheduled games. Opportunities are more prevalent online because of easier accessibility. Any argument that there are "too many legends and we should change the rules" is the same as folks complaining about the RNG on FUMBBL or Cyanide. The math is the same as in real life - you just see the anomalies quicker with a larger sample size.

Can I get a cheer?!? "Rules are fine! Stop the whine!" (x3 / backflip / statue / leg kick)
Posted by MattDakka on 2016-02-12 15:17:46
Tabletop or online, no matter the format and the time, some Legends are more easy to obtain than other ones.
This is the problem, if you fail to see it I don't think I can help you.
And by the way, the more skills a player has, the higher the chance he/she/it will break the game in an undesirable manner.
If you don't agree then feel free to play vs teams made of Legend one turners and clawpombers and enjoy yourself.
Well, if you are in the "just roll dice and see" spirit maybe you will have fun, if you like to play more interesting games where coaching skill matters more than sheer dice rolling then you should not be very happy.

Posted by NerdBird on 2016-02-12 15:26:23
Mrt....I thought your numbers seemed a little low for legends. Brasky's WMD's in the box have had 79 legends in their career. Just one team.
Posted by NerdBird on 2016-02-12 15:33:57
I have only managed 1 legend on my time here on FUMBBL. A dwarf runner who died from a boot.

I have the 3rd most games played all-time for High Elves in the box and have not managed a legend...best I managed was 108 SPP's. You have had more than 20 less games yet have 3 legends.

Posted by NerdBird on 2016-02-12 15:38:56
I would also like to add in Ranked, every single race (including slann, flings and gobbos) have had more than 25 legends all-time. Every single race.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 18:20:44
Nerdbird, I focused on Box simply because it's my playground and it's wholly CRP. With Ranked I think that time and opponent selection can increase the odds that anyone can build a Legend. I pointed out that time and commitment as well as survival are factors that influence Legend creation so it shouldn't be a surprise that even if we narrowed it down from 2013 onward, there would simply be more. Also Ranked is at least twice as popular as Box for activity. Since there's not an easy way to measure the rate of Legends per coach, per game played, per player per division, this is what I had to settle on looking at.

As for Brasky's missing Legends, I had to stick to the top 25 by SPP. That Brasky and Calcium are the Juan Valdez of Chaos only goes to emphasize that coaching commitment and time investment are important factors in accruing all time Legends
Posted by Nightbird on 2016-02-12 19:28:52
CRP legends are only easy to build IF you are able to play very frequently. Is it a problem? No, I don't feel it is based on that observation. So I disagree w/ the whole LRB was better suited to fumbbl & CRP for TT. Though i do understand that premise. Ageing sucked & has no place in BB IMO. Players should get damaged & or die on the field. Period. Great write up mrt1212. It was interesting. What I'll never understand is where people find time to do so much research & write up these very long blogs/ forum posts. Don't you guys work FCS!?!?!? :)
Posted by fidius on 2016-02-12 19:31:06
Is "there are too many Legends" really the chief motivation behind ageing and other skill changes?

One could argue that Legends can be unbalancing, leading to domination of a league. There's probably some truth to this point, but for me I'm more looking for fluff and realism. Having an aging star on your roster would be fun - to protect him, adapt to new weaknesses in his game, talk about impending retirement and how long he'll last ("With the number of Niggling Injuries that Legend has, Bob, he's one hit away from a career as a colourman!")... Sounds like a good time to me.

Also, having multiple Legends on a team can be very difficult to keep track of in-game, particularly on TT. If we're talking about complexity, Legends can add a great deal of it by their mere existence.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 19:39:00
Fidius, while this post wasn't directly aimed at you, I think the part where I mention some ideas being absolutely sublime for League play is part of the point. I think what might have gotten lost in my verbosity is that what would be great in one venue of play might not be so great in another venue of play. Having only experienced CRP, I've found a niche in Box that self evidently has created a lot of entertainment. And playing in ryanfitz's draft based leagues has given me some insight that the underlying rules and mechanisms should be the same but the team building can be whatever your heart desires - it really just affects the player participation in those leagues. If you don't want to invest a lot of time in metagaming your team, you don't have to participate but the reward for those who do and self select for it is immensely satisfying. I think one of the main takeaways from this post, although not clearly stated, should be that we should look at the perspective of going from less to more complex within the context of the divisions and how they create matches and the process coaches go through when deciding what venue they play in.
Posted by SpecialOne on 2016-02-12 19:56:24
My eye got caught on this point:

"- Give fouling more teeth and less downside risk."

In Denmark a TT-league in Copenhagen are playing by Plasmoids NTBB-rules, and in those rules the actions of Fouling gives +1 to the foul. That combined with a nerfing of the CPOMB, has resulted in an all fouling contest. Playing WE has become almost imposible, because of no cheap players. So no players to give DP, and just be careless with.
I don't play in that league myself, but talk to some of the guys who do. Don't nerf CPOMB AND give fouling bonuses. I can agree on doing something about CPOMB, but let's not replace it with some new "kill all menz"-variation.

@mrt1212. You can find the danish Naf-rep Lars Smail to hear more on the matter. Smails fumbblaccountname is Darheel. He can give you some greater details as he runs the mentioned league. I support your noble quest!
Posted by Jeffro on 2016-02-12 20:17:49
In regards to MattDakka:

"Well, if you are in the "just roll dice and see" spirit maybe you will have fun, if you like to play more interesting games where coaching skill matters more than sheer dice rolling then you should not be very happy."

If you are playing Bloodbowl - a dice based game - then you will always, at some level, be affected by odds and luck. That *IS* this game. That a One-Turn-Scoring rat can "win" the game by outscoring a ClawPOMB-laden abomination that has laid waste to it's team... that *IS* this game! Coaching skill matters, yes... but sometimes all the skill in the world can't make up for a random miscue or misfortune. Maybe one isn't happy with the result, but the fact that the game allows one to blame something *other* than the coaches themselves - I think - is fun and refreshing. It's what keeps me playing; not what frustrates me.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 20:46:55
Ooh, thanks SpecialOne, I'll reach out to him. I think a lot of the desire for fouling stems from LRB 4 and prior coaches really enjoying the IGMEOY mechanic and CAS related fouling being an equal source of player removal to blocks.

I agree, I would hate to see BB turned into a game of all out fouling, but I would happily trade in Blocking related CAS for some increase in Fouling related CAS as there's more equal opportunity to engage in it. But obviously not the detriment of entire teams. In the end I wouldn't want to make Blood Bowl without the Blood but would like to see balance between how teams get there.
Posted by NerdBird on 2016-02-12 21:09:46
IGMEOY was awesome for TT. Most of our league members had painted referees which were easy to transfer from side to side. I thought it was a great mechanic and was a total hoot when the ref busted the one who DIDN'T have the eye on them!
Posted by SpecialOne on 2016-02-12 22:21:17
@mrt1212. Furthermore. Plasmoid is also one you can reach out to. He is Martin Lærkes on facebook. He made the rules for NTBB - Narrow Tier BloodBowl. I for one don't like all his ideas, but he has put a lot of thought AND data into them. By talking to both guys I think you will get two different views on how the ruleset works, and where it doesn't.

@Nerdbird. IGMEOY was a great thing! I loved it when my opponent fouled, and he got the eye, and then got sent off the next time around. Was surely great!
Posted by thoralf on 2016-02-13 04:50:29
Nice post, mrt1212!

I noticed today that we could simply delete "Block or" in the Piling On description skill and the attrition rate of CPOMB might be reduced quite a lot. Perhaps we'd still need to revisit the stack too, but deleting two words seemed simple and elegant.