tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
 Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 02:10 |
 
|
Guys, seriously. You grow your team again after the rebuild.
If you only have to "cut" to 2000 TV at season end, and then play 20 games with d3 MVPs and no Spiralling Expenses on top of that, and never hit CPOMB, you will end up with extremely large teams. Up around 2600 or more.
And then you'll still have to cut them back to 2000 TV at the end of the season.
There is no "maintaining 2000 TV" with seasons. Not even a thing, that's just CRP.
The point of seasons is having periodic rebuilds for everyone. That's it. The same thing that CPOMB and Spiralling (and the bank limit that never happened) were supposed to do for LRB 6, and did for most teams. But without CPOMB and Spiralling, teams will all end up 2400+ pretty quickly and not often drop back at all.
Exceptions for random Flings getting 7 kills on your XFL champion Rats and stuff as always.
Which is fine, if you don't want seasons, you'll all have mega big teams pretty quick and rebuilds will be very rare for everyone, good for y'all. The rules do seek to encourage player turnover and team rebuilds though. |
_________________
  |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 02:10 |
|
| keggiemckill wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
This is what happens when people publicly shed tears over pixels. The give a solution, no one wants. |
Basically people won't like any attrition system.
There were ageing and fouling, and people didn't like them.
There was clawpomb and people didn't like it.
There will/may be seasons, and people don't like it.
I, for one, like the fact that I have to struggle to keep my teams in good shape. And that super-high TV teams should be sporadic and hard to sustain.
I mean, why not just get rid of Permanent injuries and deaths? |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| Uedder wrote: |
Basically people won't like any attrition system.
There were ageing and fouling, and people didn't like them.
There was clawpomb and people didn't like it.
There will/may be seasons, and people don't like it.
I, for one, like the fact that I have to struggle to keep my teams in good shape. And that super-high TV teams should be sporadic and hard to sustain.
I mean, why not just get rid of Permanent injuries and deaths? |
QFT, and shhh, or they'll come for our perms. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
First they came for the Old Pile On
And I did not speak out
Because I did not pile on adding my strength
Then they came for the Wild Animals
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Fielding Tentacled Minos
Then they came for the Claw/RSC
And I did not speak out
Because I did not churn for doubles and Claw/RSC
Then they came for mass DP
And I did not speak out
Because I did not mass foul
then They came for Ageing
And I did not speak out
Because ageing was awful
Then they came for Cpomb
And I did not speak out
Because I did not Cpomb, and all my mens died
Then they came for sane team values
And there was no one left
To speak out for sane team values
(HUGE apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller) |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
Last edited by PurpleChest on %b %04, %2016 - %02:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Haha. I enjoyed it anyway  |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 04:58 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | keggiemckill wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
This is what happens when people publicly shed tears over pixels. The give a solution, no one wants. |
Basically people won't like any attrition system. |
Ok, so clearly you mean 'some people who we don't even know if they are a majority or not'. But what was always pretty clear was that what 'people' really didn't like was 'random' and or 'off pitch' attrition. Losing players in game was always understood to be expected.
| Uedder wrote: | | There were ageing and fouling, and people didn't like them. |
Again, the complaints were different. People didn't like how strong fouling was, they didn't mind that it existed (some may have, but we can ignore them as T16 cry babies). People absolutely hated how aging 'randomly' shafted their teams. But why do we even care about aging? It's gone and it's not coming back.
| Uedder wrote: | | There was clawpomb and people didn't like it. |
Again, some people cried like crazy and other people embraced it, and most people sort of sat in the middle and figured out how to deal with it.
| Uedder wrote: | | There will/may be seasons, and people don't like it. |
No, 'people' don't like when applied to R and B. No one seems at all bothered with it for L. If you still cannot see the fundamental difference between how seasons affects open divisions vs. how cpomb or fouls affected them then I don't really know what to say.
| Uedder wrote: | | I, for one, like the fact that I have to struggle to keep my teams in good shape. And that super-high TV teams should be sporadic and hard to sustain. |
So good for you. What any of us individually likes is entirely beside any point of this thread. If we honestly discuss what the ramifications of any particular change will be we can come to a conclusion about if that will be generally good or bad or neutral for the overall health of the divisions it is applied to.
We've done that I think, I'm not really sure what points you are trying to argue frankly, other to express your personal preferences. Noted. Move on.
| Uedder wrote: | | I mean, why not just get rid of Permanent injuries and deaths? |
Hi, my name is TV+ pleased to meet you.
But yes, why not get rid of them? If you're serious, which you aren't, do tell what you think would happen and why it would be a bad idea. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 05:05 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Uedder wrote: | | keggiemckill wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
This is what happens when people publicly shed tears over pixels. The give a solution, no one wants. |
Basically people won't like any attrition system. |
Ok, so clearly you mean 'some people who we don't even know if they are a majority or not'. But what was always pretty clear was that what 'people' really didn't like was 'random' and or 'off pitch' attrition. Losing players in game was always understood to be expected. |
Licker (and others) is spot on and this is why I compared the new season mechanic to ageing.
Off pitch removal is just awful. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 05:26 |
|
| licker wrote: |
Ok, so clearly you mean 'some people who we don't even know if they are a majority or not'. But what was always pretty clear was that what 'people' really didn't like was 'random' and or 'off pitch' attrition. Losing players in game was always understood to be expected. |
Let's say SOME people then.
So LRB4 fouling was 'random'? Clawpomb is 'random'?
Are seasons random?
| Licker wrote: |
Again, the complaints were different. People didn't like how strong fouling was, they didn't mind that it existed |
So just make it useless so it doesn't cause attrition. Being 'too strong' simply means doing it's job as an attrition system.
And people didn't like it.
Now that it's no longer a reliable attrition system, people don't mind it.
| Licker wrote: | | Again, some people cried like crazy and other people embraced it, and most people sort of sat in the middle and figured out how to deal with it. |
LOL. You're at this degree of twisting reality already? I believe there's no need to dig the forums to prove clawpomb was the most hated and whined about attrition system in Blood Bowl.
| Licker wrote: |
No, 'people' don't like when applied to R and B. No one seems at all bothered with it for L. If you still cannot see the fundamental difference between how seasons affects open divisions vs. how cpomb or fouls affected them then I don't really know what to say. |
If you still can't see the correlation between removal of piling on (and Spiralling Expenses, and D3 MVPs) and seasons, then I'm the one left speechless...
Hint: it all lies in the word "attrition".
| Licker wrote: |
So good for you. What any of us individually likes is entirely beside any point of this thread. If we honestly discuss what the ramifications of any particular change will be we can come to a conclusion about if that will be generally good or bad or neutral for the overall health of the divisions it is applied to.
We've done that I think, I'm not really sure what points you are trying to argue frankly, other to express your personal preferences. Noted. Move on.
|
Cool. But I point out that between the two of us, you are the one suggesting to house-rule R and B. I'm just trying to find a way to implement it in a way that's good for us all while still keeping in touch with Blood Bowl rules.
You don't want seasons in Ranked and Box. Noted. You said so for what? 40 posts? Let's move on.
The point, which should be pretty clear, is that to play Blood Bowl, you need to stick to Blood Bowl official rules. I think. You can't remove the rules that cause attrition because SOME people don't like them.
This leads to the gem...
| Licker wrote: |
Hi, my name is TV+ pleased to meet you.
But yes, why not get rid of them? If you're serious, which you aren't, do tell what you think would happen and why it would be a bad idea. |
Nothing. It just wouldn't be Blood Bowl anymore. And I like playing Blood Bowl. |
|
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 05:33 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Uedder wrote: | | keggiemckill wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
This is what happens when people publicly shed tears over pixels. The give a solution, no one wants. |
Basically people won't like any attrition system. |
Ok, so clearly you mean 'some people who we don't even know if they are a majority or not'. But what was always pretty clear was that what 'people' really didn't like was 'random' and or 'off pitch' attrition. Losing players in game was always understood to be expected. |
Licker (and others) is spot on and this is why I compared the new season mechanic to ageing.
Off pitch removal is just awful. |
It is. And nobody is saying seasons are the best thing since sliced bread.
They are, however, part of the new ruleset.
And, if rightly implemented, they're not as bad as having CRP fouls as the best attrition system in Blood Bowl. Not by a mile. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 06:00 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | [N]obody is saying seasons are the best thing since sliced bread. |
Sliced bread is awful.
It encourages minmaxing on bread.
People don't have the freedom to have tiny slices or bread or YUUGE slices.
Every sliced bread comes in a plastic bag.
A plastic bag! I tell you.
Back in my days, everyone used to make their own bread, and nobody argued about the slice I took, except those who woke up after me.
We did not use chemical crap to raise our dough. We used real yeast. It grew on you. It felt good.
That's all we ate all winter, with molasses, and navy beans if we were lucky. There was less beans by the end of winter. Then we were free to start fishing, hunting, and planting again.
Let's make the good ol' days great again! |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 06:28 |
|
| Uedder wrote: |
It is. And nobody is saying seasons are the best thing since sliced bread.
They are, however, part of the new ruleset.
And, if rightly implemented, they're not as bad as having CRP fouls as the best attrition system in Blood Bowl. Not by a mile. |
I think they are fine for leagues with, you know, seasons.
Massive matchmaking divisions like Ranked and Box are nothing like the leagues with seasons in the new ruleset.
You are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 07:25 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Uedder wrote: |
It is. And nobody is saying seasons are the best thing since sliced bread.
They are, however, part of the new ruleset.
And, if rightly implemented, they're not as bad as having CRP fouls as the best attrition system in Blood Bowl. Not by a mile. |
I think they are fine for leagues with, you know, seasons.
Massive matchmaking divisions like Ranked and Box are nothing like the leagues with seasons in the new ruleset.
You are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. |
You may be right. I think there's a way to jam it in so that it fits nicely. It needs some working around the edges, but it can be done.
And that peg right now is what GW gave to fill the hole left by the departure of Piling On (and Spiralling Expenses).
I mean, options are:
1)Take away PO and SE. Leave seasons out. Everyone gets a 3000k team in 30 games. 40 maybe.
2)Take away PO. Leave SE. Leave seasons out. SE take care of elves. That's the bottleneck for them. It doesn't take care of Nurgles, Undead, Necros, Dorfs, Orcs... basically every team that could afford huge banks in CRP. Mostly bash teams whose only TV trims came from clawpomb occasionally killing a positional. That's going to happen a lot less now. So, CRP-level (more or less) Elves, and 3000k bashers.
3)Leave CRP. (not going to happen)
4)Try and implement the ruleset as a whole. It's true, seasons are a bottleneck, but with a fair amount of games - say 20/30 - the TV range wouldn't change considerably from what we're seeing now. You could still go high tv tho.
What seasons also do is leveling the playing table TV-wise. Which is great for TV-matched environments.
With 20-30 games season, we're talking about soft effects, but effects nonetheless.
By now it's pretty clear which option I picked.
I don't think it would be good for FUMBBL if it became a place where 2000k is Mid TV and 3000k is high TV. I think it would isolate it from the blood bowl community.
Blood Bowl played on FUMBBL would become more and more different from Blood Bowl played anywhere else. I don't think that's a good thing.
That's it. Why I'm trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 07:43 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | licker wrote: |
Ok, so clearly you mean 'some people who we don't even know if they are a majority or not'. But what was always pretty clear was that what 'people' really didn't like was 'random' and or 'off pitch' attrition. Losing players in game was always understood to be expected. |
Let's say SOME people then. |
Let's 
| Uedder wrote: | So LRB4 fouling was 'random'? Clawpomb is 'random'?
Are seasons random? |
There is actually very little random in any of those things, compared to aging. Which is what you were talking about at the time. Yes yes, dice are rolled, the results are random, what is not random is how things are actually done in the game. That was my point. You might be lucky or unlucky with the in game attrition, but it's an understood part of the game. So was aging, it was in the rules, but people accepted the in game results far more happily than the out of game results.
Look, seasons is still aging, it's just aging you have (some) say in. Does that make it better? For some yes, for others probably not, since the goal for some is to just build their teams, Seasons (depending on implementation) removes or hinders that.
It also legitimizes min/maxing (again depending on implementation). Which is neither good nor bad in my opinion, but it's just another fact about what the results of seasons will be.
| Uedder wrote: | | Licker wrote: |
Again, the complaints were different. People didn't like how strong fouling was, they didn't mind that it existed |
So just make it useless so it doesn't cause attrition. Being 'too strong' simply means doing it's job as an attrition system. |
See this is your problem. You appear to be incapable of looking at anything in a nuanced manner. It's all completely black and white to you. I don't want to go into the reasons why people complained about LRB4 fouling (but it's wasn't just the 'strength' it was also mechanically how it was implemented and how that caused matches to be played out).
| Uedder wrote: | And people didn't like it.
Now that it's no longer a reliable attrition system, people don't mind it. |
Eh? It's not really a matter of the reliability of it for attrition, it's the fact that the current implementation makes it pretty poor to use for many teams. And yes, plenty of people still 'don't like it' if you pay attention to the threads where guys whine about fouling.
| Uedder wrote: | | Licker wrote: | | Again, some people cried like crazy and other people embraced it, and most people sort of sat in the middle and figured out how to deal with it. |
LOL. You're at this degree of twisting reality already? I believe there's no need to dig the forums to prove clawpomb was the most hated and whined about attrition system in Blood Bowl. |
Again, were you here for LRB4? CPOMB was certainly hated in CRP, not sure it's far to say how it stacks up against mechanics from other versions of the rules. But even if it were, so what? My point isn't even about cpomb, it's about the removal of PO, which is a crazy way to nerf cpomb, this isn't the thread for that discussion however.
| Uedder wrote: | | Licker wrote: |
No, 'people' don't like when applied to R and B. No one seems at all bothered with it for L. If you still cannot see the fundamental difference between how seasons affects open divisions vs. how cpomb or fouls affected them then I don't really know what to say. |
If you still can't see the correlation between removal of piling on (and Spiralling Expenses, and D3 MVPs) and seasons, then I'm the one left speechless... |
Well adding in expensive mistakes is not so different from SE, so that's more or less a wash. D3 MVPs has little to do with anything other than the slight overall bump to spp not going to dead/retired/loners. Seasons, is fine in terms of controlling for TV though, but again, we're talking about divisions whose point is to allow for teams to build however they like. And frankly in R you already have people who avoided CRP attrition, so really you just don't have any point unless you want to focus only on B.
| Uedder wrote: | | Hint: it all lies in the word "attrition". |
Indeed it is. And I've already told you a zillion times that apparently BB is meant to be played in the 1500-2000TV range, so all of these discussions are completely pointless as seasons should just be implemented to force that range and then everything is according to the intent of the rules.
Or do you not believe that's true?
| Uedder wrote: | | Licker wrote: |
So good for you. What any of us individually likes is entirely beside any point of this thread. If we honestly discuss what the ramifications of any particular change will be we can come to a conclusion about if that will be generally good or bad or neutral for the overall health of the divisions it is applied to.
We've done that I think, I'm not really sure what points you are trying to argue frankly, other to express your personal preferences. Noted. Move on.
|
Cool. But I point out that between the two of us, you are the one suggesting to house-rule R and B. I'm just trying to find a way to implement it in a way that's good for us all while still keeping in touch with Blood Bowl rules. |
No, R and B are already house ruled, well at least B is. See there's no such thing as MM in the rule book. There's no such thing as restricting TV gaps in match ups. So really the notion of 'oh noes we can't houserule' is just silly. Christer can choose to do whatever he wants to do, and while he has said he thinks he would like to implement seasons, that doesn't mean he will if he cannot find a satisfactory way to do so.
Thus these discussions of what the pros and cons are for various implementations of it.
| Uedder wrote: | | You don't want seasons in Ranked and Box. Noted. You said so for what? 40 posts? Let's move on. |
I don't really care actually. I think implementing them would remove what makes them what they are, and I've said that many times. Doing so is fine though, but it requires us redefining what R and B are supposed to be. I'm fine with that though, I just think that enough people like R and B as they are, so whom are we doing seasons for, and what is actually gained by doing them? Just sticking to the rule book? That's an incredibly poor reason in my opinion.
| Uedder wrote: | | The point, which should be pretty clear, is that to play Blood Bowl, you need to stick to Blood Bowl official rules. I think. You can't remove the rules that cause attrition because SOME people don't like them. |
Of course you can. Do you even NAF bro?
| Uedder wrote: | This leads to the gem...
| Licker wrote: |
Hi, my name is TV+ pleased to meet you.
But yes, why not get rid of them? If you're serious, which you aren't, do tell what you think would happen and why it would be a bad idea. |
Nothing. It just wouldn't be Blood Bowl anymore. And I like playing Blood Bowl. |
Like I said, do you even NAF bro? Look I think TV+ is a horrible idea, but the actual goal of it is reasonable. It's not a fit for R or B though, but there's really no reason why you can't make an open division use resurrection rules. Yeah, you probably would want some kind of aging, or *gasp* seasons, but hey, there's nothing really wrong with doing it that way now is there?
I mean if that's what enough people want to do.
Oh, so maybe we have a perfect division which already allows us to customize the rules for our teams and our competitions. Yep, I think we do.
Leave R and B alone. If the only reason you can come up with for why seasons should be implemented in them is 'because' then I suggest you have completely failed. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 07:52 |
|
| Uedder wrote: |
Blood Bowl played on FUMBBL would become more and more different from Blood Bowl played anywhere else. I don't think that's a good thing.
|
Ugg...
No it wouldn't
Why?
Because blood bowl played on FUMBBL is ALREADY different from how it's played anywhere else (other than cyanide).
There is simply no TT equivalent to what R and B do. This has been the issue with implementing the rules since... well since forever.
The GW guys don't give a crap about online play (other than online play which mimics TT play). This is incredibly clear and has even been stated in the past.
But what part of the rules are we actually talking about? Not the actual mechanics which affect the game (or maybe you think we need to drop slann, pact, underworld too?), but something designed for ~8 team leagues?
How, why, when where do you think that something designed for 8 teams leagues should be shoehorned into what are essentially infinite leagues? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 08:15 |
|
| licker wrote: |
| Uedder wrote: | | There was clawpomb and people didn't like it. |
Again, some people cried like crazy and other people embraced it, and most people sort of sat in the middle and figured out how to deal with it. |
Even some of those people who whined the longest and and loudest didn't actually want PO removed completely. 
| licker wrote: |
| Uedder wrote: | | There will/may be seasons, and people don't like it. |
No, 'people' don't like when applied to R and B. No one seems at all bothered with it for L. If you still cannot see the fundamental difference between how seasons affects open divisions vs. how cpomb or fouls affected them then I don't really know what to say. |
Some people won't like it. But then some would want (nerfed) PO retained. Though they may think that the rulebook nerf is too much and makes it pretty useless.
So useless that it is not worth campaigning to keep it.
People are not complaining about L because they assume that they will be able to tweak it and/or disable it.
Some of them may be planning on keeping CRP+ PO so don't think they'll need it.
Or maybe switch to PO = POer KOed on doubles.
| licker wrote: |
| Uedder wrote: | | I mean, why not just get rid of Permanent injuries and deaths? |
Hi, my name is TV+ pleased to meet you.
But yes, why not get rid of them? If you're serious, which you aren't, do tell what you think would happen and why it would be a bad idea. |
Some people would like it. But I think they mainly play Cyanide.  |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
