Tripleskull
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:53 |
 
|
| fidius wrote: | 11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Yes but I don't believe it can be done. |
I could tell you how it could be done.  |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:57 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | The numbers alone are not proof that we could not change the rules. |
I've not said they are. |
|
|
tiler_kiwi
Joined: Jul 08, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 21, 2016 - 13:08 |
|
im not an expert at BB but i have opinions and like writing words
1. I'm actually a big turd and dislike randomness, or at least randomness for randomness' sake. I don't think it inherently adds anything to a game, or is necessary to keep it dynamic. At its best, it allows risk management and keeps play from becoming routine, but I think it often is used to do things that other methods could do better. It is not a substitute for depth, and it can end up being both overly swingy and overly deterministic. On a short term sort of thing, rolling badly on a few key LOS blocks and injuries can end up hindering you for the entire game, while on the long term, play can wind up becoming stiff and predictable once the odds of play are understood enough for a single style of play to dominate due to the nature of probability. Of course, imbalance exists in more deterministic games as well, but randomness is often treated as if it is a solution to these imbalances, rather than another potential source of it.
I think BB has a lot of strength as a game due to the risk management aspect to it, but it ought to be reduced to a few key systems, such as blocks and passes, and minimized as much as possible in other areas. Big Guys, for instance, ought to have a drawback that is not dependent on probability.
2. In open leagues, where TV is used as a means of matchmaking, yes.
3. I think that combo plays into the worst aspect of randomness; teams reliant on it either win big or lose big based on block rolls, and the dice tend to be tilted in their favor. They are also annoying since even if you win against such a team in an open league, the damage done to your players makes the whole experience rather not worth it.
4. No opinion.
5. Flawed. I don't think it was ever meant to ensure fair matches, but BB really does need some sort of method to do so in open style play and TV gets used regardless; its flaws make a lot of other flaws in BB more painful, such as ClawPOMBer teams, unbalanced skills and problematic skill synergies, injuries, and twinked low TV teams. It could be a fairly effective tool to address issues in balance without having to mess with the rules too much directly, but as it is, TV efficiency is a bit overemphasized in builds due to the disconnect of cost/benefit and TV cost to things.
6. Pointless, mostly. Maybe more important in closed leagues. Adds more complexity to little effect, and its functionality could be better replicated by modifying other systems.
7. Eh. If TV wasn't such a flawed means of balancing teams I could see the success tax argument more.
8. They should be a little overpriced, as other have said, since players can both be more selective when picking them, and also since players can care a lot less about their fate (although their chance to steal SPP ought to be noted). But making them too expensive and worthless because of some verisimilitude based logic is bad.
9. Balanced; having TV "windows" for teams is fair enough in closed leagues, although it sort of adds more issues to the whole "Is TV a balance mechanic" thing. In open leagues it just leads to sillyness and gets in the way of things, in my opinion.
10. I think the real thing that would benefit is giving players more valid options and more an encouragement for risks and aggressive play.
11. Some sort of Downs system is something I've heard proposed before. I think the fact people don't really like stalling is enough to think that there ought to be a sort of thing that encourages scoring. Having fun shouldn't be less effective than being boring and chilling at the endzone for turns on end. It really only gets egregious, though, when someone stalls and the other player has absolutely no options to cope with it.
12. Nah.
13. I always feel a little dour about there's such a line between "playing to win" and "playing for fun" in BB. Sillyness and inventiveness ought to be encouraged.
14. No opinion, but more inducement options would be fun I suppose.
15. I've got mixed feelings on gold. There's so many balancing systems in this game that I sometimes feel that gold is kind of redundant, at least in open leagues. I think you could give a lot of teams infinite gold and they would not actually do anything with it, aside from maybe engage in more cycling (which might not even be a bad thing, as there is a feedback loop right now with gold where successful teams get more gold, which allows more cycling, making more TV efficient teams, which leads to more success. Spiraling expenses does nothing to mitigate this, of course.)
16. Hmm. I think less powerful. I'd also go for having events take place every x turns as opposed to only being on kick offs. One strength in stalling is that you get to avoid the other team getting those events, on top of reducing chances for things like KO recovery or evening out the number of players on the pitch, so throwing in a possibility of things happening that would aid a suffering player such as players returning to the pitch... but this is probably a bad idea. |
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
