FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 16:43

So can my skinks be 55k too then?

However, more on topic, I think the idea IS largely silly. Ignoring Chaos and Pact for the moment, almost any team that does get any change of 5k to a positional is going to save them, at most, 20k, or one skill. Generally speaking, 1 skill is simply not going to change much. In principle, you might be right. It might be close to the right costs. But in reality, the absolute difference simply isn't that high. The exceptions being Beastmen and Marauders. However, let's take Bladers crazy pact team, as quite probably one of the teams that would change the most with this idea. With this change, his team would cost 50k more. Would 50k REALLY have done anything to balance his team? Would he not still destroy most teams he ran up against? And if a team like his, where the change would be as drastic as it could possibly be, really wasn't affected by the change, then I don't think the change is necessary at all.

However, if we are discussing environments where teams are only playing 1100 and resurrecting, maybe it would matter. But as that's not something I've participated in, I don't have the experience, even though my gut says that based on Bladers team, it simply wouldn't matter.

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 16:46

harvestmouse wrote:

What are the main problems with .5 ST?

For one there will not be many 1d blocks anymore. In many cases it means to go from -2d straight to +2. For a computer client it would be probably hard to handle. (since probably working with int). Most of the time it would not serve any real purpose like when calculating tents. There would be no way to improve on half a strengh point and it would just really overcomplicate things in terms of calculating a lot for no good reason whatsoever.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 17:49

Nelphine wrote:

So can my skinks be 55k too then?

However, more on topic, I think the idea IS largely silly. Ignoring Chaos and Pact for the moment, almost any team that does get any change of 5k to a positional is going to save them, at most, 20k, or one skill. Generally speaking, 1 skill is simply not going to change much. In principle, you might be right. It might be close to the right costs. But in reality, the absolute difference simply isn't that high. The exceptions being Beastmen and Marauders. However, let's take Bladers crazy pact team, as quite probably one of the teams that would change the most with this idea. With this change, his team would cost 50k more. Would 50k REALLY have done anything to balance his team? Would he not still destroy most teams he ran up against? And if a team like his, where the change would be as drastic as it could possibly be, really wasn't affected by the change, then I don't think the change is necessary at all.

However, if we are discussing environments where teams are only playing 1100 and resurrecting, maybe it would matter. But as that's not something I've participated in, I don't have the experience, even though my gut says that based on Bladers team, it simply wouldn't matter.

It wasn't necessarily and idea just to fight min-maxing, however it could help a little. I've heard the same argument time and time again about min-maxing (it wouldn't make much difference), however if you added all these little things together, they would make a difference. That's totally off topic anyway.

I think the masses have spoken!!! 5k= good idea .5 ST=stinky poo. What about positionals 0-1 or possibly 0-3?

krytie

Joined: Aug 16, 2007

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 18:05

dode74 wrote:

quixote wrote:

Shraaaag wrote:

Niebling wrote:

koadah wrote:

zakatan wrote:

i understand the pricing bit, but i seriously wouldn't like to see half strenghts around.

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

+5.5

_________________
There are three types of people in this world -- those who can count and those who cannot!

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 18:20

harvestmouse wrote:

What about positionals 0-1 or possibly 0-3?

I think that really needs case to case decisions. We already have 0-1 a couple of times and they certainly should be limit to filling out particular rolls but not be a platform for super stars (too much weight on single players would create an imbalance on starting rosters.)

With 0-3 it really should be a case to case thing too but right now I don't see the need to change anything for either in that regard. I think within certain limitations it would be perfectly doable to make a far more balanced ruleset and with all respect to the recent ideas, the task is clear: Clawpomb needs to be changed, not to be worked around it.

And quite frankly, if we ever should come to the point that we can do something about stuff, we should be carefull not to have too many small changes to fix one thing because that is what brought us here in the first place.
After all the idea was to balance out the removal of claw+rsc and old fouling.

Regardless of imbalances in the rules, the alteration of player costs of course makes sense alone because it's measured in 10000 gp, but more importantly because it is impossible to account for all the differences in capabilities of players. As it is now, the players are adjusted to the prices but of course it would allow a lot more flexibility to adjust the prices to the players.

I'd like to also point out something else tho. A more expensive player usually becomes less expensive in comparison to his value than a low expense player. (Marauders are the exception because they have unreasonable skill access but also here is the simple solution to limit skill access, not to change the price.(strengh on doubles is probably the most feasible))
Because of that we should be carefull to think that we can handle everything by adapting prices. Even if we would apply more specific values to every skill, there would still be a huge difference in a player with shadowing an ma9 and a player with ma4. Or an ag2 with dodge player or an ag4 dodge player. Armor keeps player on the pitch and therefore makes all the skills more valuable than on a low armor player, so we have to accept that there will continue to exist unbalances unless we would change to far far more complicated TS calculation system.

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 18:36

just to clarify (and I probably don't need to, but I'm putting off walking to Home Depot), my point of mentioning blader has nothing directly to do with clawpomb.

My point is:

I don't think changing positional prices by 5k will matter.
On some teams, there won't be any change. (Doesn't matter)
On some teams less than 5 players will change, so at maximum, you will have a 20k TV difference on the team. (20k TV = 1 skill, probably never going to actually change the outcome of a game, unless it allows for inducing a wizard, but you're probably just as likely to happen to induce a wizard against 1 TV value as you are against the other.)
On the most extreme possible team that you suggested, Chaos Pact, on the most extreme team where you would have 10 players with the price change, you will have a 50k TV difference on the team. Presumably though, you are making these changes to balance the team; and I believe that even a change of 50k TV will mean virtually nothing to such a Chaos Pact team, because of the strength of wide skill access. If you were to change from Marauders to Amazon Linewomen, my argument would be precisely the same, except instead of 'strength of wide skill access' it would be 'strength of 11 blodgers'.

In each case, the suggested change really won't help the game system at all; and since it will be more complicated (even if only barely), and it doesn't really add anything, then I agree with Jarvis and Jimmy. KISS.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 19:42

I'm pretty impressed you've been able to change this into a clawpomb AND min-maxing thread, when the idea didn't incorporate 1 and wasn't really aimed at the other.

Great job.

Also very witty Krytie, me likes.

spubbbba

Joined: Jul 31, 2006

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 21:02

FUMBBL and all BB forums needs it's own Godwin's law with Clawpomb instead of Naziz. Rolling Eyes

I'm trying to think of which teams would benefit from having players that were 0-3.

I've seen suggestions for trolls and treemen on the stunty teams, and you could always give khemri back mummies and make both them and blitz ot thro-ras 0-3.

Maybe witches and blitzers on DE, drop throwers on Norse and make the runners 0-3?

_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe

WhatBall

Joined: Aug 21, 2008

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 21:18

I like the idea of the 'half-pricing' as well. To me, BB should drop the annoying 1,000s of gold and use increments of 5 gp. It should be used for skills too. Each skill should be reassessed and valued from 10 to 30 TV in steps of 5.

_________________

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 21:53

harvestmouse wrote:

I'm pretty impressed you've been able to change this into a clawpomb AND min-maxing thread, when the idea didn't incorporate 1 and wasn't really aimed at the other.

never underestimate the forum's ability to bugger a thread.

_________________

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 22:07

pah, I'm assuming it's about balance. If it's about balance, then it doesn't balance the teams where it would make the most difference. If it doesn't balance them (and it makes virtually no difference at all to other teams), then I don't see the point to doing it.

If it's about pure accuracy, then you're probably right. I just don't feel accuracy means anything if it doesn't change balance. However, as a mathematician, I understand why accuracy can be enough of a goal on it's own. I just want to make sure that's why we're doing it.

Sorry about mentioning those other things.

jarvis_pants

Joined: Oct 30, 2008

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 22:13

FUMBBL Staff

5k for players really dosent matter as the amounts are calculated automaticaly for us.

I dont really see a need for doubling strength.

The place where i would like to see a d12 roll would be for agility simply put the difference between dodge ag3 and dodge ag4 is to big. 1/9 to 1/36

_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher

uuni

Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 22:20

Wouldn't the price idea get served by doubling every price, starting money and winnings result?

That way, the unit would still remain as the unit and there would be no need for further fractions. It would serve us to remind what level of precision is the "final word", so we would not end up debating, whether Human Catcher should be 66k or (67+pi/4)k.

I think the doubling of the ST parameter sounds interesting, althought I'm not sure what its full consequences would be. Good things is that it would bring ST into the same range as MA and AV. If ST-increases from star player rolls would remain +1, the price could probably be reduced to 30k (60k in doubled price). Maybe that would stabilise the play too much? Could the same treatement be somehow applied to AG? Roll + modifiers would have to beat the new AG-score or something?

***

Still, would this topic be better served in the subforum of Real Life Blood Bowl, where some previous topics about rule changes have been placed? Personally, I think that NTBB&CRP+ have less radical changes than changing the ST-mechanic.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 22:23

Good idea about skill costs whatball, that's another area we can cause more hair lost for poor Jervis with incomplete numbers.

Spubbba: I believe in the past, rosters have been made so that, positionals fit with either a 0-2 or 0-4 format. I also believe that of the established rosters, there isn't much call for 0-1s or 0-3s (not much call with 0-3s at all).

However, I feel that having the 0-2 and 0-4 shackles, this inhibits roster creation. For example, I use a Pirate roster (with a 0-1 ships captain) and a Araby roster (with a 0-1 Sheikh) that would suffer with the aforementioned build requirements. In this way, Chaos Pact has been a step forward.

Nelphine: It's partly about balance, partly to do with making unpopular positionals popular, and partly to do with making it easier to balance, without encumbering other positions on the roster.

I.e. in the past, if one position didn't quite fit, you could make another position slightly weaker or slightly stronger, and therefor balance the roster. One major problem with this route, is that positionals may lose their authenticity, by this I mean, they are no longer have the stats, price or fluff that were intended.

5k is a subtle fix to help in these situations, not completely, but partly. I can't see any negatives with this fix, working in 5ks is hardly any harder maths wise.

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Jul 15, 2012 - 22:27

Fair enough. Also, I do like the idea of 0-1 positionals (especially for roster creation), although I'm not sure of a good example of something I'd want 0-3 of, other than Goblin Trolls, and even that is iffy (I'd really want an extra fanatic instead of an extra troll).