deathgerbil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 06:39 |
 
|
I think the star's increased price is also way out of hand too.... who in their right mind would pay 200k for a freebooter? or 150k for a wizard who casts one spell?! and i think that the proposed changes to ff are kinda messed up too... automatically getting a +ff for just 10k if you win? ff will never decrease, because it would be a voluntary decrease...
Bull centaurs just plain suck now without block access, and so will big guys too. But I don't think that dwarves anything else added to them, - imho their the most powerful as it is right now. |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 07:01 |
|
All the different variations of rules are starting to give me a headache. I still think the existing divX rules haven't run for long enough; however, if these rules are to be tested, they really have to be in a fresh division, because of the extent of the changes -mixing old and new teams developed with massively different rules will not tell us anything.
I was thinking of running a set of polls to see what aspects of the three different rulesets are liked most, like Curbing Team Rating methods (Aging, Negative Winnings+Freeboot Apoth, TR Hard Cap), Handicap methods (Table, Sweeteners) and so on. I don't have the energy to do it right now.
One important note: TR is now unaffected by SPPs of players - it is costed by skills alone. This is a godsend for one-turners and other SPP hogs.
One last thing - the Sweetener system opens the door to many more Star Players; the way they are costed has been explained by Galak, so it isn't tough to introduce more. It's the hardest thing for SkiJunkie to introduce, though, along with an options pages that can track all the rule variations!
Edit: in answer to Deathgerbil - the amount of money available is far greater now as winnings is unaffected by FF or TR. Stars will still mostly feature on the lineups of underdogs via the sweetener rule. |
|
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 07:35 |
|
Provided you win the game you will get an average of 70k in cash. If you lose the game you will average between 30-40k, actually it is probably less since it is the worst of two. So somebody explain to me how on earth it is practical to hire an apothocary every game and still be able to purchase the players you need to fill out your rooster, rerolls, replace dead or injured players, etc. So unless you deliberatley put your self at a disadvantage every game to get the extra cash, which will result in you losing more often and thus getting less cash overall, my best guess is anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your games will be played without the doc.
This is going to be brutal on skaven, pro elf, and woodelves and real pain for a lot of other teams too. I beleive it was argued that the weakening of big guys was somehow supposed to balance this out for the low av teams but really big guys never accounted for that many casualties compared to a lot of other players. I really don't see how a lot of teams could keep up with replacements and hiring the apo at that price. If it was reduced to 20k or even 30k it would be more managable imo.
Weakening big guys is all well and good, most teams could live without them. But i can't imagine how khemri and undead will be competitve with the weakened mummies, they where already weak teams to begin with especially after undead lost two wights and didn't get any comp. And chaos dwarves BCs getting hosed along with there big guy is just to much. Granted they where probably the best team but after the minotaur got the new wild animal and now that they are losing gen acess i think that was enough. Now they will just be too weak. Hose the big boys if you must but hoseing the bcs and mums will destroy one great team and two that where already struggling.
Not wanting to come off on a completely bad note there where some very good changes mixed in too. The watered down handicap table was a long time coming and is very much apreciated, the old table just put to much on a random die roll. Being able to pick your mvp is a godsend for a lot of teams especially lizzies, orks, and necro. I like the decreased influence of fanfactor on the game and the new winnings system. Most of all i think the league cap is very simple and streamlined method of keeping teams in check. There are surely more mathmatically sound ways of doing it but keeping it easy to handle for table top players is very important. Also the revision to tr is overall a good thing and will make tr a much more accurate indicator of a teams potential. That said the only other thing that bugs me about the rules is the inability to ignore a stat increase in favor of a regular skill and losing a skill choice if you roll the same one 3+ times. There are some players who don't need an agility increase, if my mummy or saurus rolls agility he just became 50k more valuable for my tr but i doubt he is going to touch the ball much or dodge around like an elf. It would be better to leave the skill selection rules alone imo. |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 07:54 |
|
Personally, I think these changes are just way off. In my opinion, the system just needs a bit of tweaking, not total remodelling. Yeah ok so we go and test that for a few months, then you're going to have a bunch of coaches who likes it and another who doesn't. What do you do after this? How do you determine if the changes work or don't? If half the community agree and the other don't, who wins? I think you might be heading for a lose-lose situation. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:20 |
|
| thmbscrws wrote: | | Provided you win the game you will get an average of 70k in cash. If you lose the game you will average between 30-40k, actually it is probably less since it is the worst of two. |
No idea where you've read that, since it's actually the best of the 2D6 for the loser.
| Quote: | | So somebody explain to me how on earth it is practical to hire an apothocary every game and still be able to purchase the players you need to fill out your rooster, rerolls, replace dead or injured players, etc. |
Well, the weaker team will be able to get an apoth for free.
| Quote: | | So unless you deliberatley put your self at a disadvantage every game to get the extra cash, which will result in you losing more often and thus getting less cash overall, my best guess is anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your games will be played without the doc. |
50% of the games with a TR difference greater than 5 one team will have access to a free apoth.
| Quote: | | This is going to be brutal on skaven, pro elf, and woodelves and real pain for a lot of other teams too. I beleive it was argued that the weakening of big guys was somehow supposed to balance this out for the low av teams but really big guys never accounted for that many casualties compared to a lot of other players. I really don't see how a lot of teams could keep up with replacements and hiring the apo at that price. If it was reduced to 20k or even 30k it would be more managable imo. |
Not only do beaten up teams get a free apoth (provided mng-players have not to be paid for), they'll also be able to hire journeymen and stars for free, thereby protecting the rest of the team significantly.
| Quote: | | Weakening big guys is all well and good, most teams could live without them. But i can't imagine how khemri and undead will be competitve with the weakened mummies, they where already weak teams to begin with especially after undead lost two wights and didn't get any comp. And chaos dwarves BCs getting hosed along with there big guy is just to much. Granted they where probably the best team but after the minotaur got the new wild animal and now that they are losing gen acess i think that was enough. Now they will just be too weak. Hose the big boys if you must but hoseing the bcs and mums will destroy one great team and two that where already struggling. |
Nah, Chaos Dwarves will still be a side to be reckoned with (they basically resemble a pact roster IMO), khemri are broken powerhouises right now (at least according to an overwhelmig majority of coaches) that ask for a decent nerfing, and undead aren't particularly weak either.
| Quote: | | That said the only other thing that bugs me about the rules is the inability to ignore a stat increase in favor of a regular skill and losing a skill choice if you roll the same one 3+ times. There are some players who don't need an agility increase, if my mummy or saurus rolls agility he just became 50k more valuable for my tr but i doubt he is going to touch the ball much or dodge around like an elf. It would be better to leave the skill selection rules alone imo. |
That's just a typo. |
|
|
Elkerlyc
Joined: Mar 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:29 |
|
Another thing to consider is the fact that there are only a few ST skills. What if your mummy has break tackle, guard, piling on and multiple block? Then what?
Someone else has said it before but I'd like to repeat; how often do you think apothecaries can be hired for beginning teams? (under TR125) Playing each other?
Say your TR104 team plays a TR106 team. Can you freeboot apoth for 30k (if you are lucky enough to have the cash) plus 'sweetners' ?
Has it been considered that certain 'notorious slow learners' (Black Orcs spring to mind but there is more!) are no longer this? If I want to as a coach I can get block every second game for a Black Orcs even if he scores no casualties! Simply give him MVP twice. Makes a starting Orc team with 4 Black Orcs a damn hard team. After 8 games at worst they'll have 4 BO's with block. Actual casualties speed this up of course.
Is this on purpose? |
|
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:35 |
|
I remeber galak writing something about making it easier for players like bobs to get block in the thread about big guys losing gen skills so yes i would say it is intentional and a good thing in my opinion. |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:37 |
|
While some people might think khemri is a strong team as it is there winning record is pretty awefull as far as i know, regardless, without block acess on mummies khemri will be all but unplayable. |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:42 |
|
Are the bloodbowl rules really so bad that they need a complete overhaul? |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 09:53 |
|
Good point Grod. By changing everything, they're going to create a whole new set of problems. Will we be better in the end? I certainly doubt it. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 10:19 |
|
The authorities were concerned that the handicaps system wasn't really giving underdogs enough of a chance - they wanted underdogs to have a 1 in 3 chance of causing an upset. The Vault rules obviously aren't perfect, being only starting points for an intense period of playtesting, and Galak has already said several things about how the new rules might skew things too much towards the underdog.
I would be interested to see how powergaming coaches construct their teams, especially if they try the strategy of 8-9 permanents plus regular stars. Also, I wonder how woodies, zons and norse teams will go trying to get above 150TR - and whether anyone will be able to beat dorfs, or even play them without taking 6 casualties per game.
Oh, and I'll ask this here again: Can we please have MNG players NOT count towards the TR calulations for the sweetener? |
|
|
Carl_Stoneyard
Joined: Nov 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 11:06 |
|
With more money coming in per game it will also be easier to replace players. Having an apo for a game should be a CHOICE. With pros and cons. If you wanna be certain that your star will survive the game, you'll have to reduce your chances of winning that game.
I find it a bit disturbing that people just complain about the new rules and how much HARDER it will be for their favourite team to compete using them. Some players in here are just dead certain about how BBRC should do their work.
I am perfectly confident that all this stuff have been thought over several times before putting it in the vault. Now, our job is the PLAYTEST the rules, not to while about them. |
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 11:08 |
|
| Elkerlyc wrote: | | Another thing to consider is the fact that there are only a few ST skills. What if your mummy has break tackle, guard, piling on and multiple block? Then what? |
I asked Galak this same question in the thread on TBB. Apparently there is supposed to be a rule that lets you use normal rolls a double once there are no more normal skills to take. Presumably it was left out by accident and will turn up when the typos get changed.
EDIT: In answer to Carls post, people post these threads to get our opinions. If they didn't want people to answer they wouldn't post the threads. Ask Galak, he LIKES to get feedback on stuff like this. |
|
|
Carl_Stoneyard
Joined: Nov 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 11:24 |
|
| Quote: |
EDIT: In answer to Carls post, people post these threads to get our opinions. If they didn't want people to answer they wouldn't post the threads. Ask Galak, he LIKES to get feedback on stuff like this.
|
That is true of course. I just doubt the quality of some of the feedback. Opinions are great but they are such a waste of time if they are not well supported. |
|
|
Majere
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 11:24 |
|
Is it true that undead have 0 starplayers to hire now? |
|
|
|
|
| |
data on the most use...
Search
