JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
 Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 16:24 |
 
|
But why? What problem does the bank rule solve? Apart from like the bad JM rule on fumbbl of randomly screwing elfs for no apparent reason I see no benefit to it. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 16:51 |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 17:07 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: |
I think your effort kind of misfired then, and your post seemed quite condescending to me. |
Well, I did not respond. So it couldn't have come off in any way.
I only did that after you called me out. And at that point me coming off condescending was just part of forcing an answer out of me.
I did not call you stupid at any point, tho.
In fact the only remark I made about your personality is that I felt that you had a genuine interest in the rules.
I did realize what you were doing and why. I also had read your explanations, and the terrible responses you had gotten. That aside I did not feel like you had identified any issues correctly.
I did not feel the need to pile on with the others and felt you surely must have realized by yourself that there was at least severe disconent with your suggestions among some rather qualified coaches.
| Quote: | In fact the only thing that wasn't a response to another suggestion was Bank, which is why I thought it would be funny to hear what your problem was with that rule. It seems that the irony didn't come across  |
Which is part of the issue: You do not even realize that people potentially *could* have a problem with that.
Please understand, and let me say this again: I do not think you are stupid. I do think tho there are some people that have spend more time with this game than others and not everyones opinion is of the same value, although everyones opinion deserves to be heard and to be taken seriously. Even if it is just someone being ironic. As ironic as that sounds. As I said it was just a bit too much for me to go through every single part of what you said.
| Quote: | I was initially excited about the TV cuts for injured players, but felt it was too easily abused, so suggested a more discrete version.
|
It was a great idea and the guy who posted it was fully aware of how controversial it was. Thats why he only suggested a mild cost reduction. He already considered the issues. If there is an advantage for this sort of thing that can be even justified to a point. It doesn't have to be: A benefit from injury has to be avoided at all cost. After all if we can get more diversity in the game that is a good thing. In the end you do it or you don't but I think his reasoning and suggestion was valid. Your fix was just kinda wayne.
| Quote: | Another poster had suggested adding some d8 rolls to the game. I disagree, and would prefer building on the existing game mechanics. Since I otherwise agreed that GFI's seem a bit easy,
|
This sentence was actually lacking logic. I think the thought process is to first want to disagree with what you say, then one hat to rethink what one has just read and then upon realizing that it doesn't make sense probably better to say nothing. Anyways if you have read my response to the OPs suggestion you'll probably know that I thought that it was a pretty dope idea and not at all a hinderance for beginners.
But here is the thing: GFI with a d6 is harder than a GFI with a d8. So the suggestion was to make the GFI easier, not harder.
Which is good, because it doesn't make sense that you try to run a couple of empty squares over a gras field, stumble over your own legs, break them and lose the game. Anyways, we're talking really invasive stuff here so every idea in that direction has to be taken with a serious grain of salt. The suggestion to adapt to a d8 was ultimateively driven by the thought to create a less severe variance from stats.
Your response and solution completely disregarded that. You essentialy just took the example that was used and suggested a solution to something that wasn't really broken and disregarded the deeper fix that had been presented to you. If you don't want a d8, don't use a d8. Don't try to fix the fricking GFI, they are fine the way they are. The whole d8 thing would be a massive overhaul and the problems it would be create would be massive and require tons of playtesting. You can't brainstorm that sort of thing ahead of trying. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %01, %2015 - %17:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 17:21 |
|
Okay, this might actually be a case of different environments having quite different needs, and from a strictly competitive perpetual league perspective, the effects might be less interesting. There would be a bigger incentive to use more cards or stars, and blatant abuse of Journeymen might be minimized. More cards will mean more randomness, and this does not make the game more competitive. Some people have different stances on using Journeymen, but in this regard I think a cap of around 200kgp is probably a decent solution for most rosters. 200 + match winnings would suffice to replace a few positional players in most situations.
As a non-FUMBBL example: in my TT league last year, with each team playing 10 - 30 games in a season before starting a new team, some teams rose in power fairly quickly, won some more games and then accumulated large treasuries. We sat on those piles of gold that made our teams mostly impervious to damage, and didn't care the least about Spiraling Expenses because we were already rich enough. No gold was ever spent on inducements since that would increase the TV gap and favour the underdog. Rolling for winnings became a pointless exercise and those digits on our rosters meant nothing. From the perspective of blood bowl as a fluffy sort of fantasy football 'simulation', it doesn't seem realistic to me that this wealth isn't brought into play to influence the games. I think this is an unsatisfying aspect of the game, though I admit that the changes are less interesting from a competitive perspective. To fully realize the potential of the Bank rule, some changes to the current inducements might also be good.
On a side note: Suddenly forcing the Bank rule into effect in a place like FUMBBL would obviously be a crazy move, as there are teams with millions of gold in their treasuries, but in a way, I'd kind of like to watch a few of the resulting matches  |
|
|
pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 17:22 |
|
When I see these threads, I wonder: am I alone in thinking things are fine the way they are?
If I had to change something, I would revert Ogres back to the way they were in LRB4; no idea why they took an already terrible race and made it the WORST race. But even that is minor, and if BB never got a new rule set I would be happy. I can't be alone on this, can I? |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 17:30 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | | it doesn't seem realistic to me that this wealth isn't brought into play to influence the games. I think this is an unsatisfying aspect of the game, though I admit that the changes are less interesting from a competitive perspective. |
I think that is sort of the point. Fixing something because it doesn't feel quite as authentic should be pretty low prio.. You look for the issues in the balance and then you fix climate issues along with it where they are relevant. You don't go off and change something just because you think it would be kinda nice if it was handled differently. That being said... you are absolutely right that money has become rather unimportant. On the + side it doesn't get in the way of the fun in the game either and you can't exactly use it for something game breaking no matter how much you got.
You see this is actually nice for your league. You play these 20-30 games and you get to actually think about using money for inducing advantages and levelling the playing field rather than just having to use it on injuries in a get no injuries or die constallation..
And if you truely end up with a lot of treasury before resetting the teams you kinda just mismanaged your money mate. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %01, %2015 - %23:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 18:02 |
|
@Wreckage:
Thanks for your response. What bothered me at first was not any direct 'response', but the offhand comment about 'lowering the bar'. This certainly seemed to imply that you think I'm stupid, or at least that my opinion is of the sort that has lower value to you, as you say. Whether intentional or not, that did come off condescending to me. So I called it out, since I think that sort of thing requires an explanation. But let's leave it at that.
Reading about introducing d8's in a sentence about players strolling about, I simply assumed that the intention was to make the roll harder, as in 3/4 success rate. The logic is sound, though I could have misinterpreted his initial post. I have no wish to 'fix' GFI's at any cost, but since I felt like a possible issue had been addressed, I chipped in with options.
I respect your comments, I just don't get why you don't think it makes sense to brainstorm. It is, among other things, a good way to come up with surprising ideas and then weed out the wrong ones. Even if the wrong ones tend to have my name on them, I really see this as a constructive thing. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 18:20 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: |
I respect your comments, I just don't get why you don't think it makes sense to brainstorm. |
It does make sense to brainstorm.
A lot of people find this sort of discussion to be unnerving.
It is no coincidence that this thread is in the off topic section. It is a statement to remind us that whatever we discuss here bears no actual meaning.
That being said, I do participate in this debate because I feel it does have value.
With the brainstorming argument I was specifically referring to the d8 situation and attempts of rule fixes that would be similarly severe in nature.
You can sort of draw a raw design for this sort of thing but because it is so far off of something we have ever done it wouldn't make that much sense to speculate on the problems that arise from it and to suggest solutions for something this theoretical. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 18:36 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | When I see these threads, I wonder: am I alone in thinking things are fine the way they are?
If I had to change something, I would revert Ogres back to the way they were in LRB4; no idea why they took an already terrible race and made it the WORST race. But even that is minor, and if BB never got a new rule set I would be happy. I can't be alone on this, can I? |
I'm almost there with you. I really feel there were missed opportunities for intuitively fun things, but I wouldnt cry about there never being a rules update ever again. Game is fun in spite of its flaws. |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 18:44 |
|
I think bank rule is not needed in perpetual league. Even the teams with few millions will get bad streak some day. Even "WMDs in the box" went to 0 gold in the treasury. |
|
|
Beerox
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 18:53 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Game is fun in spite of its flaws. |
That is true, and it's mostly true due to the fun coaches, fluff writers, league managers, and other positive contributors great and small... aka the people.
From a rule standpoint, the game/site is standing wide open to be ruined. Elevate the amount of %$*$# teams on this site and hordes of coaches will run for the exits. How close is the tipping point? Who knows. Would we smart enough to tweak the rules if we tried? Hmm
So we sit in a somewhat tenable balance, teetering on the edge. These threads serve as therapy. Oh and booze. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2015 - 19:05 |
|
There is something to be said for the catharsis of circular discussion, as much as it chaps the ass of some old timers. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 11, 2015 - 02:37 |
|
I'd like to see some rework to injury/journeyman. Right now, most non-moot injuries are grounds to replace a player, and with the ease of journeyman, it's too good a choice to just ditch the player, and if necessary rely on journeymen until you've recovered. There was nice flavor in injured players sticking around. |
|
|
seanh1986
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 11, 2015 - 03:11 |
|
Piling on needs to seriously be toned down. Being able to re-roll the injury rolls makes no sense... I'd have it re-roll armour rolls only and I'd add that 1 in 6 times the "piling on attempt" failed and the player attempting PO should suffer an armour roll!
Claw should be -2 to armour (min of 7), which gives Treemen some added protection... And it should reduce to 7 PRIOR to taking into account the effects of +Av... This makes taking +Av for players you want to protect actually viable.
Also, Tomb Guards need to lose decay, it makes them die far too easily... They are already nuked by not starting with MB.
Fouling needs to be more slightly effective (e.g., DP adds "+1 AND +1" or "+2 or +1") or you need to get sent off less frequently.
I think if all races only got Mutations on doubles the game would be way more balanced... Chaos/Nurgle would be significantly less dominant... yet still strong, in my opinion. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 15, 2015 - 22:37 |
|
hello everybody
i am very new here and mostly enjoy reading what more experienced players ponder about this wonderful game.
so in my opinion this is a wonderful game and i haven't experienced yet things that i really think would need to change too much. but i notice here and noticed in cyanide how many people would complain about piling on, just like my preposter:
| footballolb16 wrote: | Piling on needs to seriously be toned down. Being able to re-roll the injury rolls makes no sense... I'd have it re-roll armour rolls only and I'd add that 1 in 6 times the "piling on attempt" failed and the player attempting PO should suffer an armour roll!
... |
interestingly for me he also complains about fouls
| footballolb16 wrote: | Fouling needs to be more slightly effective (e.g., DP adds "+1 AND +1" or "+2 or +1") or you need to get sent off less frequently.
|
personally i would not change fouls at all, i'd rather do the opposite. but i would like to mention how me and some friends "solved" the piling on in private boardgame sessions. we simply added the danger of getting banned for piling on. because basically it seems to be not too different from a foul, you attack a player that is already on the ground.
honestly. it didn't effect our games too much as we play not that often, only a couple of times per year maybe. but in theory it should prevent you from piling on every turn, because it could result in losing your player for the rest of the game. instead you spare it for valuable attacks only.
just curious what seasoned coaches think about that change.
have a nice day |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
