38 coaches online • Server time: 14:10
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
SquirrelDude



Joined: Mar 22, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 28, 2015 - 04:05 Reply with quote Back to top

SquirrelDude wrote:
One of the common suggestions I have seen people make is to make fouling more powerful, or make dirty player better. In that vein, I'd suggest this change to piling on.

"When the player piles-on, they aggressively target the opposing player and leave themselves more vulnerable than they would usually be. The opposing coach may add a +1 bonus to either their armor or injury rolls on a foul attempt against the player who piled-on. This bonus would stack with dirty player"

In short, any the opposing team gets dirty player, or potentially dirty player x2 against a piece that uses piling-on.


harvestmouse wrote:
It's a little bit messy though, particularly for TT. If you had half a dozen PO players on one team, keeping tabs is problematic. I think there are some easier, cleaner methods.

The Fluff's a little forced too. How would you be more vulnerable jumping on somebody, than if you had just been knocked over by a 650lb Ogre?
The messy bit is probably fair, but I'd imagine table top starts getting weird once you get a bunch of guard pieces and guys with situational modifiers like tackle/fend, etc. Still, it's something to consider.

As for the fluff? Whatever, man, change it into something you think would make sense to justify the rule. I ain't a stickler for that kind of thing.

Fabulander wrote:
I like the basic idea behind this suggestion: PO is too safe, make it more dangerous.

I don't like that the rules text then practically tells you which counter you should use. "Your opponent uses PO? Try fouling him, we've made that the best sollution for you!" It doesn't exactly encourage creative game play, and doesn't leave room for teams who for whatever reason don't focus on fouling.

If PO is too safe, make it dangerous to actually perform the pile on. Or, if POMB'ers seem to develop too fast, maybe just take away SPP's for hitting people on the ground, just like with fouling.

Hmmm, what was this thread about again?
I see your point about it basically telling opposing coaches "foul that guy." It wasn't intentional, but it's certainly there. I'd still rather apply a boost to fouling in this specific situation than apply a global boost to fouling in order to deal with this specific problem.
pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 28, 2015 - 05:06 Reply with quote Back to top

VoyagerI wrote:
xnoelx wrote:
Of minor relevance is that the BB universe (certainly the human parts) is roughly analagous to medieval Europe. And the average height for an adult male in the 1600s was 5'5", so a 5'8" player is not huge, but would certainly be considered tall. Not that that corrects all of the figures quoted, but it's worth bearing in mind before comparing human BBers to modern athletes. Knock 3 or 4 inches off what you would expect now, say.


Do those statistics hold true for the the upper classes of medieval society? I'm not current on the studies, but my understanding was that looking at the medieval population at large needs to consider that peasants generally had inadequate diets if not being outright near-starvation, which could retard their physical development. Modern man isn't necessarily taller by nature; he's simply better fed. A wealthy individual like a nobleman or a bloodbowl star probably has access to more food with more nutritional value that lets the reach their full stature.


minor point, but the 1600s is not the medieval period; it's the renaissance or early modern period. the middle ages ends in england c. 1530s (think the reformation), and perhaps a little earlier in places like Italy (cos the liked all the new things - I blame Dante), but regardless, the MAs was well over by the 1600s.

_________________
Image
Image
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 28, 2015 - 06:59 Reply with quote Back to top

SquirrelDude wrote:


harvestmouse wrote:
It's a little bit messy though, particularly for TT. If you had half a dozen PO players on one team, keeping tabs is problematic. I think there are some easier, cleaner methods.

The Fluff's a little forced too. How would you be more vulnerable jumping on somebody, than if you had just been knocked over by a 650lb Ogre?
The messy bit is probably fair, but I'd imagine table top starts getting weird once you get a bunch of guard pieces and guys with situational modifiers like tackle/fend, etc. Still, it's something to consider.


Yes that's true, but skills are marked on a roster sheet. So you refer to that, and if you miss something like guard or fend, then so be it, that's your fault. Although PO would be marked, the player hasn't necessarily POed that turn. So if you have half dozen or more POers and only some of them POed, and their's a clutter of figures in the middle, it's troublesome, you would have to somehow mark the players, which I guess now is similar to Hypnogaze but.......let's say if they can't handle IGMEOY, then they're not going to be able to handle that very well.

SquirrelDude wrote:

As for the fluff? Whatever, man, change it into something you think would make sense to justify the rule. I ain't a stickler for that kind of thing.


No, that's exactly what you cannot do. Forcing a fluff reason for a mechanical rule, is obviously forced and becomes artificial. Coaches aren't stupid and can see through after though fluffing very easily.

Either A, don't have a fluff reason and let the players accept it was necessary (aka modern claw) or B reject the idea as it damages the fluff.

A lot of coaches really do not understand the delicate balance of the fluff and how important it is. It's as fundamental as the game mechanics, if not more important. Without the good fluff grounding the Warhammer based games have, we would not have a game now. Particularly with older games like this; nobody knew how the game played, but they fell in love with the brilliant setting.

Each time you disrespect the fluff, you dilute the experience, until one day you're drinking water no beer. It's a problem, particularly online where a lot of coaches do not have a GW background and have come for the competitive mechanical game, and don't really care about the setting. Without it though, there is no game.

As there are other answers to this problem (isn't there a thread for this anyway?), it's kind of moving in the wrong direction for Blood Bowl i.e. continually stream lining the rules and speeding up play, and that it's so potentially problematic for TT I personally don't think it would even be considered.

Either nerf it or limit it, one or the other.
SquirrelDude



Joined: Mar 22, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 00:24 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:

SquirrelDude wrote:

The messy bit is probably fair, but I'd imagine table top starts getting weird once you get a bunch of guard pieces and guys with situational modifiers like tackle/fend, etc. Still, it's something to consider.

Yes that's true, but skills are marked on a roster sheet. So you refer to that, and if you miss something like guard or fend, then so be it, that's your fault. Although PO would be marked, the player hasn't necessarily POed that turn. So if you have half dozen or more POers and only some of them POed, and their's a clutter of figures in the middle, it's troublesome, you would have to somehow mark the players, which I guess now is similar to Hypnogaze but.......let's say if they can't handle IGMEOY, then they're not going to be able to handle that very well.

Yeah, you'd need some kind of markers, and blood bowl mats are already cramped as it is.

harvestmouse wrote:

SquirrelDude wrote:

As for the fluff? Whatever, man, change it into something you think would make sense to justify the rule. I ain't a stickler for that kind of thing.

No, that's exactly what you cannot do. Forcing a fluff reason for a mechanical rule, is obviously forced and becomes artificial. Coaches aren't stupid and can see through after though fluffing very easily.

Either A, don't have a fluff reason and let the players accept it was necessary (aka modern claw) or B reject the idea as it damages the fluff.

A lot of coaches really do not understand the delicate balance of the fluff and how important it is. It's as fundamental as the game mechanics, if not more important. Without the good fluff grounding the Warhammer based games have, we would not have a game now. Particularly with older games like this; nobody knew how the game played, but they fell in love with the brilliant setting..

Then remove the fluff text if that makes you feel better about that particular issue. I don't care because I don't give 1/2 a damn about the fluff.


Anyway... to try and stay on topic. Amazons probably need to be rebuilt from the ground up. The current roster dominates at lower team values, implodes at high team value if it can even get there, and is extremely bland (Oh look, another 6 3 3 7 blodge piece yay...).

Norse could probably do with a bit of reassessment as well. Far too many positional pieces on that team.
VoyagerI



Joined: Dec 17, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 02:34 Reply with quote Back to top

People talk about how Amazons implode at high TV but the statistics really don't bear it out. They're simply one of the better teams, rather than standing head-and-shoulders above everyone else. Yes, Tackle becomes more prevalent and everyone has their base skills rounded out a bit, but you won't realistically have tackle on everyone the way Zons can get an entire team of Blodgers and the biggest killers treat everyone like they have AV7 anyways.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 03:23 Reply with quote Back to top

VoyagerI wrote:
Yes, Tackle becomes more prevalent and everyone has their base skills rounded out a bit, but you won't realistically have tackle on everyone the way Zons can get an entire team of Blodgers and the biggest killers treat everyone like they have AV7 anyways.

Yes, at high TV not everybody will have Tackle (although Dwarfs and CDs come close to that), but on the other hand the few players with Tackle will probably have Mighty Blow and Piling On as well, so every time they knock down an AV 7 Amazon it's going to hurt.
Moreover, don't forget that even players without Tackle can roll Pows and knock down the Amazons, and not all Amazons are Blodgers or Wrodgers, so even Block could knock them down.
If Amazons were good at high TV we would see a lot of teams there.
Uedder



Joined: Aug 03, 2010

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 03:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Rosters are fine.

Minor tweaks is all they need, like removing decay and buffing the human catchers.

Ogars need ogars tho. And flings could use some positionals with g access.
albinv



Joined: Sep 15, 2012

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 04:07 Reply with quote Back to top

I want a Gollum for flings.

Its been on my mind for years...

I admit it...
VoyagerI



Joined: Dec 17, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 04:36 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
VoyagerI wrote:
Yes, Tackle becomes more prevalent and everyone has their base skills rounded out a bit, but you won't realistically have tackle on everyone the way Zons can get an entire team of Blodgers and the biggest killers treat everyone like they have AV7 anyways.

Yes, at high TV not everybody will have Tackle (although Dwarfs and CDs come close to that), but on the other hand the few players with Tackle will probably have Mighty Blow and Piling On as well, so every time they knock down an AV 7 Amazon it's going to hurt.
Moreover, don't forget that even players without Tackle can roll Pows and knock down the Amazons, and not all Amazons are Blodgers or Wrodgers, so even Block could knock them down.
If Amazons were good at high TV we would see a lot of teams there.


You can check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/stats.html

Amazons are still a positive winrate team at 1500-2000 TV. They do worse as you narrow the bracket upwards but, they have so few games played at that level that the data isn't really statistically viable. There's probably only a handful of teams playing those games.

You can basically guarantee that the Amazons will have more Blodgers than the other team will have Tackle because Block is a great first skill, while Tackle is a second skill at best. It makes no sense to take it on a player that doesn't already have Block/Wrestle first, and probably ranks behind stuff like Mighty Blow, Pilling On, Guard, Claw, Strip Ball, and other 'essentials' for the purpose a player is being built. It's perfectly reasonable for an Amazon team to turn nearly everyone into a Blodger the second they get their hands on 6 SPP, but you're never going to see a team where every 1-2 skill lino has tackle to counter that.

If we're talking about the typical Chaos Murderstack dude he probably gets Claw before Tackle so everyone is AV7 to him.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 04:54 Reply with quote Back to top

VoyagerI wrote:

You can check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/stats.html
Amazons are still a positive winrate team at 1500-2000 TV. They do worse as you narrow the bracket upwards but, they have so few games played at that level that the data isn't really statistically viable. There's probably only a handful of teams playing those games.

You can basically guarantee that the Amazons will have more Blodgers than the other team will have Tackle because Block is a great first skill, while Tackle is a second skill at best. It makes no sense to take it on a player that doesn't already have Block/Wrestle first, and probably ranks behind stuff like Mighty Blow, Pilling On, Guard, Claw, Strip Ball, and other 'essentials' for the purpose a player is being built. It's perfectly reasonable for an Amazon team to turn nearly everyone into a Blodger the second they get their hands on 6 SPP, but you're never going to see a team where every 1-2 skill lino has tackle to counter that.

If we're talking about the typical Chaos Murderstack dude he probably gets Claw before Tackle so everyone is AV7 to him.

If there is not enough data at high TV then showing it doesn't help, also, if it's Ranked data we can possibly dismiss it since in Ranked you can play Amazons avoiding teams with lot of Tacklers.
My anecdotal data suggests that in Black Box Amazons get more rare as the TV increases and my personal explanation is because the killer players at high TV are common and well-tailored.
In other words, a Mighty Blow, Piling On, Tackle player is better than three players with Tackle, due to the great synergy of MB,PO, Tackle, so to counter effectively Amazons you don't need a whole team spamming Tackle, just a few Tacklepombers.
Last, but not least, don't forget that, unlike Elves, Amazons don't have high movement players nor AG 4, so they are not so powerful at high TV, when they suffer some CAS they struggle because they can't outbash the bash teams (which have more Strength and Guards) nor can run away quickly.
If you want to bother, try to play an Amazon team in Black Box for a while and see how it performs at high TV.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 10:09 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree that Zons get really weak once they hit TV is a bit of a misnomer. I'm not sure about in this POMB universe though (with tackle of course). maybe that makes a difference.

I think a lot of it, is down you're used to Zons winning, and when they become average it feels like they become crap. I think a lot of why they are rare at high TV is because Zon coaches tend to sweetspot. I do agree though that probably staying at high TV in black box isn't easy or happen that often.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 13:11 Reply with quote Back to top

In games over 1700TV zons are only 48.26% in the Box. I suppose it depends on what you consider to be 'high TV'.

The WMDs don't take tackle until the 5th skill after the usual. The Babes don't bother with it at all. Even at over 2000TV!

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
huff



Joined: Dec 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 29, 2015 - 15:17 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
The WMDs don't take tackle until the 5th skill after the usual. The Babes don't bother with it at all. Even at over 2000TV!


Wait, what.... WMDs take Guard now?
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic