sparkydave
Joined: Apr 03, 2012
|
 Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 10:29 |
 
|
I don't play enough on here to have an opinion (I tend to have it on in the background rather than active participation) but I will express one anyway...
I say if any division is going to change to BB2016 then it should incorporate all of the changes, the game has been playtested and balanced in that way and should accept any drawbacks to the system are at least known drawbacks. If you incorporate most but not all of the updates you are creating all new drawbacks that we don't know about yet..
Either way will be very interesting to see what the new top dog team(s) will be... |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 10:48 |
|
Would a new division really be worth Christer's effort? What are you going to do there that you couldn't do in [L]eague?
Would it be challenge, match making or a combination of both?
Would you replicate the tournaments there?
If it is just going to be "New Faction" then chances are it will be dead within a few months. If it does survive and remains big enough to warrant a division, then it is another split of the user base. That will get you the big TV gaps that Christer was trying to avoid and also longer waits to find a game.
I'd say that you either go for it in Ranked and Box or you leave it as League only. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 15:24 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | licker wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | mister__joshua wrote: | I've read the rules quite well thanks  |
Perfect. Then you know that before you cut the 600TV you in a season, you enter into play-offs, right? |
So now every R and B team has to enter playoffs? That's asinine.
|
You surely can't force them but you can incentivate them. Playoffs could be what now are smacks and brawls and minors. Or something like that.
Giving some actual point in playing tournies past the bragging rights is a good thing, imo.
This leads me to some wider considerations about Fumbbl, its place in the bb community and its future.
What stands out about fumbbl, compared to cyanide, is its community. Tournaments, blogs, Forums, Admins etc... and how interwine themselves in random casual play.
Will anyone ever care if you get a legend zombie on BB2? Can you compete there with your fav team past casual games/ladders?
I think most casual gamers would likely play there than here. Casual gamers aren't the core of Fumbbl.
I feel the vast majority of fummbl users are either blood bowl nutties or people who want to engage a community while playing blood bowl.
That's a major strenght of fumbbl imo. And i think seasons push towards that kind of feel to the game rather than casual.
Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think. There's human interaction in scheduling a game. You get to know your opponents, they get to know you. Playing tournaments get you mingled in the community more than casual RnB play does.
Add that, with seasons, you'd also fight tooth and nails to win, because winning in playoffs (or smacks/brawl) means more money for your team!
That, i think, is unique. Is a strong point. And gets people hooked up.
It's also fluffy and stuff can be written around that.
This all works for the best of Fumbbl imo, i don't see it being the reference point for casual players in the future. For community mass play? Hell yes! |
Sorry, but theres a lot of assertions in there. I would not call myself casual, I have 1000 games played but hate the idea as do many here.
I would say the seasons make it more casual in many ways, as constant arbitrary rebuilds reduce the ability to create great teams. |
_________________
BEEDOGS FOREVER!!
Stella for President!!
Need a new challenge? Here's all the challenge you will ever need.
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=19352 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 15:53 |
|
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 15:57 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | If seasons are going to be 15-20 games then a compromise to get around most of the whining would be to make the first season a double length season. |
Arbitrary is arbitrary. Whining is a pejorative term. |
_________________
BEEDOGS FOREVER!!
Stella for President!!
Need a new challenge? Here's all the challenge you will ever need.
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=19352 |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 16:28 |
|
| Hero164 wrote: |
Sorry, but theres a lot of assertions in there. I would not call myself casual, I have 1000 games played but hate the idea as do many here.
I would say the seasons make it more casual in many ways, as constant arbitrary rebuilds reduce the ability to create great teams. |
Just to put things in perspective, your highest tv team seems to be the Amazon 2010k team.
In 54 games they scored on average 1.5 tds and 2.5 casualties. Meaning 20k + 10k for each game.
With a 20 games season, and 200k in the bank they would get 1.8 Milions to re-draft.
90k Fan Factor comes free, so the difference would be 160k.
Your 'rebuild' would be dropping 2 linewomen (1 with a skill) and a reroll. Dropping the -ma linewoman and a rookie or a reroll would do.
Is it really that bad for you? |
|
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 16:47 |
|
In season 1 maybe, what about season 3 when 7 players cost the retirement fund or more. Whatabout coaches which dont average that lvl of TD play or cas.
And why bother at all, because its either a) effects nothing and is a load of pointless admin or b) does effect things and will see people retiring out skilled players
Its a neverending league, why insist on culling teams every 20 games. It makes no sense, its just arbitrary, I'd honestly rather aging was brought back, at least that made sense. |
_________________
BEEDOGS FOREVER!!
Stella for President!!
Need a new challenge? Here's all the challenge you will ever need.
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=19352 |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 17:59 |
|
These things have been throughly discussed in this thread Hero. I stated many times my positions, and i'm not going to repeat myself over and over.
I just wanted to put things into perspective with a practical example, so that we know what's being discussed.
In 20 games seasons you amazons wouldn't even be in their 3d season. Not in 7 years since their first game. So I doubt this kind of issue would ever affect you.
Compulsive players like me or others will metagame around it. There have been huge teams with PO and SE, there will be huge teams with seasons. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 18:09 |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 18:13 |
|
| Hero164 wrote: | | Arbitrary is arbitrary. |
What the Big C decides is the law.
Whining that it's arbitrary is whining. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 18:27 |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 18:30 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | Hero164 wrote: |
Sorry, but theres a lot of assertions in there. I would not call myself casual, I have 1000 games played but hate the idea as do many here.
I would say the seasons make it more casual in many ways, as constant arbitrary rebuilds reduce the ability to create great teams. |
Just to put things in perspective, your highest tv team seems to be the Amazon 2010k team.
In 54 games they scored on average 1.5 tds and 2.5 casualties. Meaning 20k + 10k for each game.
With a 20 games season, and 200k in the bank they would get 1.8 Milions to re-draft.
90k Fan Factor comes free, so the difference would be 160k.
Your 'rebuild' would be dropping 2 linewomen (1 with a skill) and a reroll. Dropping the -ma linewoman and a rookie or a reroll would do.
Is it really that bad for you? |
Why when people say it's not that bad do they only calculate the very first season? It's like they really really don't want to calculate a team with half a dozen five season veterans because they know it would look really bad.
The first season end is really the most irrelevant, it's after 3-4 that it starts to really affect things. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 19:45 |
|
| Hero164 wrote: | | Why not make seasons 10,000 games, just as in the rules. |
Because it's not in the rules. Here's what's in the rules:
| DZ1 wrote: | | There are many different ways to run a league, with the one presented here being just one example. It is up to the Commissioner to decide how to run their league, and they are free to change or modify any of the Blood Bowl rules as they see fit. |
If the Big C decides seasons are 16 games, they're 16 games.
If the Big C decides seasons are 20-30 games, they're 20-30 games.
If the Big C decides seasons are 10K, they're 10K.
If the Big C decides there are no season, there are no seasons.
In all these cases, it's arbitrary. Nuffle bequeated all Its ruling powers to Kommissars. To Spiro's dismay. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 12, 2016 - 00:04 |
|
| Hero164 wrote: | | Why not make seasons 10,000 games, just as in the rules. |
I just pointed out how 20 games seasons wouldn't really change much in the way you enjoy Fumbbl.
20 isn't a number i throw out of the blue, it's the number Christer pointed out in his (very much alpha phase i think) idea of season implementation for R and B.
Not that I expect you to love seasons after that, but i thought maybe it's a bit reassuring for you to know that even if (and it's a big if) seasons were to be implemented, it would most likely be in a way that doesn't disrupt your current teams or the way you enjoy building them.
| Matthueycamo wrote: |
Why when people say it's not that bad do they only calculate the very first season? It's like they really really don't want to calculate a team with half a dozen five season veterans because they know it would look really bad.
The first season end is really the most irrelevant, it's after 3-4 that it starts to really affect things. |
Well, I don't know how many teams or players even play that many games.
Anyway, yeah having long standing players (100 games or more) would come at a cost for the team as a whole. It wouldn't be impossible to have some, it would be impossible to have a whole bunch of them.
Maybe having a cap price for seasons played by each player? (like max it to an additional 100k?)That would still allow players like Debog to stick around for a long time.
I said it a bilion times, but I will say it one more.
IF seasons were to be implemented, I'm pretty sure it would be in a way to allow team/player builds in a way that's not very different from what we have now.
There's nothing like "TV trimming everyone to 1400" or constantly rebuild your team. It would just be a way to keep some teams in check from fielding like 5 everlasting legends. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 12, 2016 - 00:27 |
|
| Uedder wrote: |
There's nothing like "TV trimming everyone to 1400" or constantly rebuild your team. It would just be a way to keep some teams in check from fielding like 5 everlasting legends. |
Except there is.
Which is what this whole nonsense is about. Either you make seasons matter by picking a lowish number of games (as the rules suggest).
Or you don't bother because picking a largish number of games makes seasons pointless. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
)