Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 16:43 |
 
|
| DonTomaso wrote: |
The CRP ruleset was made for short intense tournaments.
Fumbbl is about long term playing.
|
this is actually wrong the rules were written for long term play and perpetual leagues. I can provide you with many many quotes from Jervis Johnson and Galak supporting this.
But your right they dont work as intended.
Also there are many fixes, any of them could work, but nothing is going to change, there is no point even talking about it at the moment, if you really want the rules to change start a petition for games workshop to change the rules again. I would sign it but I would also be very fearful if they did agree. What would they do to this game next. My guess - make it even worse again. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 16:47 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | . My guess - make it even worse again. |
Weaken PO, improve DP, how hard can it be?
...Or just go with my old suggested variant and make PO work like in lrb4 but also useable on fouls. Needs one skillfix and the game is all good. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 16:54 |
|
I disagree, I think there are many BIG problems with this rule set, PO is just one of the biggest.
I also have no confidence in GW coming up with a new rule set. Frankly I would be alot happer if someone like Pythrr, Shadow, JockMcRowdey wrote the new rules. Im sure they would all have their good and bad points, but I think they could have done a better job than this for the perpetual environment.
Note: I do think the rules are very good for short term league play, probably the best yet.
Speaking of Shadow I really hope stunty comes back soon. I could do with some fun coming back to BB  |
Last edited by Garion on %b %23, %2011 - %17:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 16:59 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | I disagree, I think there are many BIG problems with this rule set, PO is just one of the biggest. |
I don't see it, the rules are better then ever. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:05 |
|
Azure: Thanks for the updated comments - I had looked at the replay but only in high speed and hadn't noticed the more egregious details.
Wreckage: one of the big problems with DP was that a 1skill player became so dangerous.
So..
1) Has anyone checked the maths on letting your team be Surfed v CPOMB-blitzed? (and doesn't the CPOMBer get to choose anyway?)
2) Do the admins agree that it's ok to run away and let the opponent score (with the intention of winning later) as a strategy? -though I really don't see how it could pay off if you can't pressure them into an early TD. |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:07 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | this is actually wrong the rules were written for long term play and perpetual leagues. I can provide you with many many quotes from Jervis Johnson and Galak supporting this. |
Well that's not the impression I've got so could you provide at least a couple?
| Quote: | | Also there are many fixes, any of them could work, but nothing is going to change, there is no point even talking about it at the moment, if you really want the rules to change start a petition for games workshop to change the rules again. I would sign it but I would also be very fearful if they did agree. What would they do to this game next. My guess - make it even worse again. |
Well I'd like a new ruleset but I'd much much rather see it developed on Fumbbl where I have confidence that people actually know what they are typing about. |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:14 |
|
|
Collins254
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:15 |
|
if anyone would actually be willing to attempt that i would be willing to help, unfortunatly all i have to bring is plenty of ideas and enthusiasm, but not alot of experience =[
could even add new skills coz you know how there arent enough to choose from when you level someone up being a problem *rolls eyes*  |
_________________
Its all fun and games until someone gets killed by a snotling! |
|
Niebling
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:15 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | I disagree, I think there are many BIG problems with this rule set, PO is just one of the biggest. |
I don't see it, the rules are better then ever. |
+1 |
_________________
Someone is wrong on the Internet and it is my sworn duty to correct them. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:16 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Yep they said it but Fumbbl did not have a client and Cyanide was a heap of stinking elephant turd so I don't know many teams they tested to 100+ games.
I am pretty certain that they did not test matchmaking by TV. |
They tested on midgards PBEM client I believe, as well as playing TT.
as for finding the quite i am lookign for them now. WIll take me a while though because the forum search function has disapeared grrr. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:20 |
|
| Timlagor wrote: |
Wreckage: one of the big problems with DP was that a 1skill player became so dangerous. |
My still standing and permanent suggestion was to make piling on work on armor rolls and on fouls. Ergo you'd want a foul player who has two skills: dp and piling on. And it still wouldn't work like before because you could only modify the armor roll and would be stuck on the injury roll with a +1. And I was just asking Garion what is the problem with the rules right now besides piling on. Not with the rules in LRB4.
| Quote: | | 1) Has anyone checked the maths on letting your team be Surfed v CPOMB-blitzed? (and doesn't the CPOMBer get to choose anyway?) |
The question is what result you are looking for. Normally I'd check for removal from the pitch wich is in case of a crowdpush 100%. But in such a calculation it's probably important to also include the odds for the block action since it differs in both cases. Of course Bloodbowl is based on empathy so you can'T always expect coaches to make the logically best decision and there are quite a few more complex aspects to it like how often you can be subject to attacks when you remain on pitch.
If you look purely at the odds for an injury wich is in case of a crowding 1/6 I believe the chances with clawpomb to be slightly higher IIRC.But I don't think i'd take the bargain.
| Quote: |
2) Do the admins agree that it's ok to run away and let the opponent score (with the intention of winning later) as a strategy? |
Sadly the admins seem to have decided not to comment on a rule interpretation on the site. Shadow simply mentioned a vague hint that the dealing with Frankenstein should give us a hint about their interpretation and that we shouldn't ask for or involve them in the debate if we don't want to get the thread locked. |
|
|
soranos
Joined: May 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:25 |
|
In all seriousness we need a better definition for the future in regard to what OFFICIALLY qualifies as "uncompetitive play". In turn 7/8 with the ball being out of reach or overly protected at the sideline, do I still need to stand my player up next to that PO-MB-guy or need to go for that 4-5-2d-against blitz on my turn? What about that bashing team that is now back 0-2 with 5 turns to play and instead of trying that quick 2-3 turns TD decides to go full-bash/gangfouling on his opponent? The "he-is-trying-to-bash-to-win" argument does not work here anymore.
On the other hand does having a "whacky" team concept or reputation allow to get away with anything on the pitch? So leaping DP-trolls, pass-happy dorfs or all-snotling teams are within the same set of competitive play? If I call my team "11 cowards try to play BB" and declare in my team history that the rule for the team is that they are to afraid to man-mark threatening opponents and always lay down for a while longer have I "legitimated" the strategies applied by Frankenstein by reputation alone?
Look my opinion is that everybody should be allowed to do whatever he wants on the pitch. Otherwise this will not be the last case. There are just far too many grey areas in particular in regard to these heavy-bash teams.
When I watch the reply than I can see a strategy being applied here that gives maybe the highest chance for a draw. Is it a strategy that maximizes the fun of his opponent? Surely not! It is a very negative strategy but quiet a few people would argue the same point concerning the mass-CPOMB teams. I would compare it with the tactics used in football by a Friedhelm Funkel (German coach, so you probably will need to have some knowledge of German football in order to appreciate this comparison.
I think if Friedhelm Funkel was a high-profile Bloodbowl coach he would apply this strategy against C-POMB teams if he was to kick. It is not easy for the eye, but it will/might win games.
I also see a coach, who was clearly getting a bit frustrating after the blitz and the dicing he got. Yes, at 0:2 he probably did not try to win anymore, but if we start banning teams for than the C-POMB thing might be solved after all, as the ball loses any interest for them once elfs score that 2nd TD on them.
@Azure: no offense, but you don't appear unbiased to me here. Could it be that you filled that ticket, because you were upset that he would foul your precious C-POMB monsters instead of playing the ball and positioning his players so that you can block them? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:29 |
|
Do the admins agree that it's ok to run away and let the opponent score (with the intention of winning later) as a strategy?
This is the question that needs answering because after reading Azure's report it appears that Frankenstein went way beyond that.
In a tournament where OT was involved this would 100% be my strategy, although in a one off game settling for a draw at best seems a bit lame but I still think it would be hard to argue as this not playing to win as nearly every team who plays Barcelona in real life use the "try to survive and scrape a draw" strategy. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:37 |
|
FYI Timlagor
Here are some of the quotes from the likely lads saying how the new rules are perfect for perpetual leagues etc...
there are more.
| Jervis Johnson wrote: |
The version you are now reading is the PBBL (Perpetual Blood Bowl League)
edition
The single most important thing I needed to sort out with the league rules
was the problem of the ‘part-time’ coach. Anybody who has played in a
Blood Bowl league before will understand this problem. When the league
starts up you get loads of enthusiastic coaches all clamouring to take
part. After half a dozen games, however, quite a few of the coaches will
have started missing games, or have dropped out of the league
altogether, especially if their team isn’t doing very well... The way that I
tried to get round this problem was by creating an ‘open’ league format.
This places the emphasis on arranging matches and playing games
firmly on the shoulders of the coaches themselves. In this way
enthusiastic coaches can play as many games as they like, or rather, as
many games as they can find opponents to play against. Meanwhile, less
enthusiastic coaches can play fewer games, as and when they like.
This system worked well in the 3rd edition rules, with one very important
exception: teams just kept getting better and better if they played
matches, and if they played enough matches there was simply no way
for a starting team to compete against them. This was not what I had
intended to happen at all; the league rules were there to provide
continuity between games, not to allow coaches to create ‘super-teams’
that couldn’t be beaten unless an opponent had racked up enough
matches.
This problem came about because the handicapping system I’d built into
the 3rd edition rules didn’t give enough help to the underdog. In the years
following the release of 3rd edition a number of increasingly complex
‘patches’ were applied to the game rules to try and deal with the
problem, but none of them really worked as well as I hoped, and they
added a lot of complexity to the game. In the end I became frustrated
with the whole thing and decided to go back to the drawing board and
start again with a new handicap system. After a few wrong turns this
resulted in an early version of the rules for Inducements that you will find
in the new League rules, and the associated rules that increase the value
of a player as they learn more skills. These two things are a lot simpler
than what we had before, and make it much more straight-forward to
balance a match between two teams of differing experience. They also
mean that the Blood Bowl league rules have finally achieved the design
goals I set for them back in 1993 (well, better late than never!)
|
Some comments from Tom Anders:
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=398639#p398639
| GalakStarScraper wrote: |
Jervis Johnson's definition of a "perpetual" league was one where player could come and go, stick with teams they love or start new ones in the midst of seasoned teams and the league kept running just fine. The idea of his for prepetual Blood Bowl was for a league that never had to be restarted in order to work. 3rd edition didn't work that way ... you had to restart the league from scratch every couple seasons or new teams spent forever developing because they would be slaughtered. This fact was pretty true all the way through LRB 4.0. LRB 5.0 was Jervis introducing the perpetual league concept where a league would never need to be restarted in order to work.
That's what that word meant in relationship to Blood Bowl.
So in Jervis's mind ... perpetual to him meant a league that constantly had teams retiring and new ones starting as player interest changed or new players joined and that was not a problem.
Tom |
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=398663#p398663
| GalakStarScraper wrote: |
Yes it was the intention that if a player never wanted to retire his team that would be okay. That's why the attritrion rules pack the improved punch they do with CRP, why the apothecary is worse and why Spiralling Expenses are there. All 3 are meant to help the game trim down a higher TV team.
|
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=165017#p165017
| GalakStarScraper wrote: | :
My thoughts on this. FUMBBL has proven without a doubt to me that perpetual Blood Bowl can work. IF Cyanide would program in ALL the inducements (including all the Star Players (they can leave out the Special Play Cards though)) and the rest of the 21 teams and make sure that you have a way to only have games played through non-cherry picking and non-I'll get my friends to help me cheat methods ... then it would be readily appartant that this game does work with teams playing for as many games as they want. FUMBBL has teams that have played THOUSANDS of games. And LRB 5.0/6.0 takes what FUMBBL had and made it even more balanced.
Yes at some point Blood Bowl becomes about team management over team growth ... but that is delibrate and meant to be a part of the game. Allowing continuous growth is broken and reaches the boring point that dode74 mentions.
Before you try to suggest that this games needs changed ... can you use that energy to actually work to get the whole game available first.
Seriously ... I spent thousands of hours over the last 5 years re-writing the rulebook. The BBRC had the help of some great people doing it. I believe without question that what Doubleskulls and I present to you in LRB 6.0 is the most balanced rulebook Blood Bowl has ever had. It doesn't need more ... its that good and I know its that good. However ... too many are judging this game on just a fraction of its rules as implemented by Cyanide. Before we start looking for wierd features in Blitz mode ... let's give everyone a chance to play the actual game first
Galak |
|
|
|
mattwakeman
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2011 - 17:44 |
|
Galak has also said, 'if we'd had their ([Fummbl's] feedback Doubleskulls and I have agreed that we would have changed Piling On so that if you used the skill than the re-roll could not have any of your skill modifiers used on it (so no Claw or Mighty Blow effects on any re-roll from Piling On)'
There is a lot of circular motion in this topic at the moment but not that many suggestions about how to cure the problem at root cause. If coaches really do think that Clpomb is bad and is only going to get worse then why not try this solution. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
