7 coaches online • Server time: 05:44
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Hard to find a gamegoto Post Worldcup practice le...goto Post feature request: pen...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2023 - 20:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Mingoose wrote:

What makes you want MA 8 to be less common,

Because passing has been nerfed, and the multi rr improved the running game. So, there is no need to help further the running game (typically made by bash and hybrid teams) with easily achievable MA 8. With old level up system +2 MA was harder to get, now, given enough SPPs, it's a sure boost.
Mingoose wrote:

and what makes you think MA is undervalued at 20 TV?

Well, experience and the fact that +MA makes teams win games. It's self-evident. Try to play with a MA 6 and a MA 7 ball carrier, especially on a bash team such as Orcs or Dwarfs. You will see that +1 MA makes a huge difference. With MA 7 you can, in theory, score from half of the pitch in 2 turns without GFI, also, with MA 7 you can pick up the ball at Kick-Off in every square of your half of the pitch.

Mingoose wrote:
Does that make Sure Feet one of the better skills in the game?

Sure Feet is not one of the best skills of the game, but it can be useful. It has lost some value due to multi-rr, which can "simulate" it. With 1 rr per turn Sure Feet was slightly better.
Also, if you think that Sure Feet cost is 20, and it can be considered almost as good as +MA, but not sure (because the GFI can fail), I think you will agree with me that +MA, which can't fail, should be priced 30 TV. Otherwise, Sure Feet would be too expensive. Also, 20 TV is clearly too cheap for +MA, which can be used every turn and that can make the difference between scoring a TD or not, especially now that passing has been nerfed and that running game is even more common.

Mingoose wrote:

I'm not sure about the automatic 1 SPP per game played. Imagine a dwarf team game 7, where every lino now has guard. Or zons where every lino has blodge.

Well, that's a matter of Season length. With a longer-than-7-games Season not every Dwarf would have Guard, with 7 games, yes. But on the other hand, it's better to face Dwarfs with some Wrestle Thralls and Zons with some Wrestle or Tackle or Dirty Players. Anyway, with the current system Dwarfs could not have Guard on every player, but for sure they would still have a massive skill advantage compared to teams such as Chaos or Vampires.
Chaos could have more Claws to deal with Dwarfs, with my system. The real issue, in case of Amazons and Dwarfs, it's roster design. Both of them have too many starting skills and/or not easily counterable.
I'd remove Tackle from Dwarf Blockers (60k) and would swap Amazons' Dodge with Wrestle.


Mingoose wrote:
On FUMBBL I like the automated random pick for any SPP generating piece that game, good idea.

Thanks! I like some "realism", I never liked totally random MVP, even for a parody game like BB.
A player should get the MVP for something they actually did.
Mingoose



Joined: Jul 28, 2016

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2023 - 21:22 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
Mingoose wrote:

What makes you want MA 8 to be less common,

Because passing has been nerfed, and the multi rr improved the running game. So, there is no need to help further the running game (typically made by bash and hybrid teams) with easily achievable MA 8. With old level up system +2 MA was harder to get, now, given enough SPPs, it's a sure boost.

I would much rather face a MA 8 ball handler than a blodge/fend one. Bash teams are still going to stall, they can now just stall 1 square deeper. If I get to that dwarf runner I would prefer to be able to reliably tackle him. I actually would prefer a stalling bash team have the option to score to encourage it under pressure instead of grinding me out another turn.

MattDakka wrote:
Mingoose wrote:

and what makes you think MA is undervalued at 20 TV?

Well, experience and the fact that +MA makes teams win games. It's self-evident. Try to play with a MA 6 and a MA 7 ball carrier, especially on a bash team such as Orcs or Dwarfs. You will see that +1 MA makes a huge difference. With MA 7 you can, in theory, score from half of the pitch in 2 turns without GFI, also, with MA 7 you can pick up the ball at Kick-Off in every square of your half of the pitch.

Not a great game design philosophy, "hey I lost to MA 7 so it needs a nerf". I guess I can accept that +MA on traditionally slower teams is a higher value than +MA on already quick teams. What about a primary/secondary stat increase cost? 10 or 20 TV if you don't have A access. Same with +AG. You could do the same for +ST, maybe make it 60 TV for S access and 80 TV without.

MattDakka wrote:
Mingoose wrote:
Does that make Sure Feet one of the better skills in the game?

Sure Feet is not one of the best skills of the game, but it can be useful. It has lost some value due to multi-rr, which can "simulate" it. With 1 rr per turn Sure Feet was slightly better.
Also, if you think that Sure Feet cost is 20, and it can be considered almost as good as +MA, but not sure (because the GFI can fail), I think you will agree with me that +MA, which can't fail, should be priced 30 TV. Otherwise, Sure Feet would be too expensive. Also, 20 TV is clearly too cheap for +MA, which can be used every turn and that can make the difference between scoring a TD or not, especially now that passing has been nerfed and that running game is even more common.


Failing a rerolled GFI is 1/36, which in my mind is a negligible risk category. You wouldn't needlessly take that risk, but when calculating a string of actions it doesn't really factor. With Sure Feet, you are getting +1 MA almost every time for that same 20 TV as +MA, and the option to get an additional +! MA on top. 2 GFI with sure feet is basically 1/14 chance of +2 MA, still very good odds. Obviously with +MA you still have the option of further GFI meaning there is additional value, but I don't think you can say there is a corollary between sure feet being 20 TV therefore +MA should be more.

MattDakka wrote:
Mingoose wrote:

I'm not sure about the automatic 1 SPP per game played. Imagine a dwarf team game 7, where every lino now has guard. Or zons where every lino has blodge.

Well, that's a matter of Season length. With a longer-than-7-games Season not every Dwarf would have Guard, with 7 games, yes. But on the other hand, it's better to face Dwarfs with some Wrestle Thralls and Zons with some Wrestle or Tackle or Dirty Players. Anyway, with the current system Dwarfs could not have Guard on every player, but for sure they would still have a massive skill advantage compared to teams such as Chaos or Vampires.
Chaos could have more Claws to deal with Dwarfs, with my system. The real issue, in case of Amazons and Dwarfs, it's roster design. Both of them have too many starting skills and/or not easily counterable.
I'd remove Tackle from Dwarf Blockers (60k) and would swap Amazons' Dodge with Wrestle.


Imo it is not better to face dwarfs with a bunch of wrestle thralls, I would certainly rather have naked thralls and not face the higher TV dwarf team. I 100% agree with the premise they start with too many skills, or for Amazon more accurately that they start with a secondary skill.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2023 - 22:15 Reply with quote Back to top

Mingoose wrote:

I would much rather face a MA 8 ball handler than a blodge/fend one.

I play Elves a lot and Blodge on a ball carrier is good, but not as good as you may think. Pows still happen (with multi-rr Blodge is slightly less effective than it used to be). It's easier to stop a MA 6 Blodge Runner rather than a MA 8 Blodgeless one, because he can score in fewer turns. A MA 6 Blodger could even lack the MA to score at all.

Mingoose wrote:

Bash teams are still going to stall, they can now just stall 1 square deeper. If I get to that dwarf runner I would prefer to be able to reliably tackle him. I actually would prefer a stalling bash team have the option to score to encourage it under pressure instead of grinding me out another turn.

I'm not sure I understood the 1 square deeper bit. If you mean that they can stall closer to the End Zone, yes, they can, but what if the ball carrier is not close enough to the End Zone and just 1 or 2 turns are left?
Anyway, a bash team will stall, no matter if it has a MA 6 Blodge Runner or a MA 8 one. It's easier to stall with MA 8, because it requires less turns of stalling/movement/GFIs.

Mingoose wrote:

Not a great game design philosophy, "hey I lost to MA 7 so it needs a nerf".

It's not a personal matter like you say. I faced MA 8 Runners and I had myself a MA 8 Runner, I have been on both sides of the MA 8 fence, and it's clear that a fast ball carrier makes bash teams too good, especially with multi-rr (also, it seems to contradict the design idea of nerfing the passing: what's the point of nerfing passing, which was already riskier than running, if the running game gets boosted by easy-to-get +MA and multi rr?). MA 8 makes GFIs to score less necessary, and makes stalling vs the team with the MA 8 less effective, because with MA 8 2 turns can be enough to score. With MA 6 and Blodge ball carrier (to get back to your example) it's quite easy to defend vs a 2-turn score attempt.

Mingoose wrote:

I guess I can accept that +MA on traditionally slower teams is a higher value than +MA on already quick teams. What about a primary/secondary stat increase cost? 10 or 20 TV if you don't have A access. Same with +AG. You could do the same for +ST, maybe make it 60 TV for S access and 80 TV without.

I tried to stick to BB2020 level up table, where all stat boosts have a fixed TV value, without taking into account the accesses, as you suggested. 30 TV seems quite right to me. That and MA cap should suffice, in my opinion.

Mingoose wrote:

Failing a rerolled GFI is 1/36, which in my mind is a negligible risk category.

negligible risk? well, if you are trying to score, that single 1/36 is a risk you are better off avoiding by having +MA, which will make the extra square MA 100% sure.
I agree that failing a not important GFI with Sure Feet 1/36 is an acceptable risk, but not when you need to score or move towards the End Zone to score in the next turns.

Long story short: +MA is better than Sure Feet, so it should cost more than 20. 30 seems to me a right price.
About the sequence: Sure Feet will always make a sequence riskier than +MA. +MA is a 100% GFI.

Mingoose wrote:

Imo it is not better to face dwarfs with a bunch of wrestle thralls, I would certainly rather have naked thralls and not face the higher TV dwarf team.

You could have naked Thralls, but more developed Vampires, thanks to the 1 SPP per game. You would not be forced to take the skill on Thralls. Also, a couple of Thralls with Dirty Player could make a difference vs Dwarfs. Chances are that they will not have a long bench, after 7 games.
Mingoose



Joined: Jul 28, 2016

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 00:06 Reply with quote Back to top

You talk in a lot of absolutes which you support with even more absolutes instead of evidence. I personally don't mind facing high MA ball carriers. You have an opposite opinion. Unless you can point to some sort of statistical advantage that makes your opinion absolutely true, I don't feel inclined to have +MA increased to 30 TV. I also don't buy into the argument that if it's "better" than sure feet it must cost more. Sure feet could be over costed and not worth taking at 20 TV. Sure feet is also statistically better at getting +2 move in a turn. Overall this seems like a non issue where there are other more serious issues with bb2020.

I am rethinking the thrall scenario though. I would love to wait out +AV on all my thralls.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 00:40 Reply with quote Back to top

+MA is absolutely a game changer, on ball carriers. (Everyone else is a different story, but imo it should be priced for those who use it best.)

Play against a skink or a chameleon skink - the regular skink is a much bigger threat. Play against a wood elf catcher or a gutter runner, the gutter runner is even more annoying. Play against undead using a wight as a ball carrier vs a ghoul as a ball carrier - the ghoul is far more reliable. +MA absolutely matters, and I've even suggested it should go to +40k TV. I think 30k is more playable, but I cannot stress enough how good +MA is on ball carriers. It's so good, every single ball carrier should take it as either their first or second skill (only taking block or dodge, as chosen primary, first, and only one, not both. If you start with one, go straight to +MA.)
Nightbird



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 01:10 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
JackassRampant wrote:
While we're fixing things in our minds, +ST should be 60k.


Is this the same argument running concurrently in two threads?

My old brain can't deal with such stuff. Wink

But, I'll shake on 60k and call it a deal. Mr. Green


How bout we break it in half & call it 65K, deal Question

_________________
"There's something out there waiting for us & it ain't no man...we're all gonna die."
Disclaimer: I rarely, if ever, revisit forum threads I post within. Enjoy!
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 01:31 Reply with quote Back to top

Iam a big follower of the low TV dwarfs take Stand Firm as first skill.

_________________
Comish of the: Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 01:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Nightbird wrote:
koadah wrote:
JackassRampant wrote:
While we're fixing things in our minds, +ST should be 60k.


Is this the same argument running concurrently in two threads?

My old brain can't deal with such stuff. Wink

But, I'll shake on 60k and call it a deal. Mr. Green


How bout we break it in half & call it 65K, deal Question


I believe that we can still stick with old style progression and get it for 50.

So, no. Mr. Green

_________________
Image
Star Only Roster - Testing
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2023 - 11:53 Reply with quote Back to top

Mingoose wrote:
You talk in a lot of absolutes which you support with even more absolutes instead of evidence.

Well, I don't think I just talked using absolutes, I made some actual examples, such as: MA 7 allows to move safely in 2 turns from half of the pitch to End Zone, and to retrieve the ball in any square of your half when the ball is kicked off. Also, it's not an absolute telling that +MA is an automatic GFI. I could go further and tell you that in theory a MA 8 Blodge Dwarf Runner could score a 1TTD. Not easy but for sure more likely than doing it with a MA 6 Blodge Runner or a Sure Feet one. Now that you can use multi-rr, trying to score fast is less risky if you have +MA, because reduces the GFIs you have to try. Moreover, +MA is a safe move you can do every turn, while a Sure Feet ball carrier is not going to risk a GFI every turn.
A sure extra MA square is better than 2 potential squares with Sure Feet, because you are going to use it more often and 100% safely, so I think that +MA should be priced 30 TV. 40 TV could be right too, as suggested by Nelphine. Since I'd cap the stat boost at +1 per characteristic I think that 30 TV could be ok.

Mingoose wrote:

I personally don't mind facing high MA ball carriers. You have an opposite opinion. Unless you can point to some sort of statistical advantage that makes your opinion absolutely true, I don't feel inclined to have +MA increased to 30 TV.

Well I don't have a table and data to show you, but I played thousands of games and I can tell you my experience. Really it seems to me evident that fast ball carriers are game-changing, because the simple fact your opponent has one of them makes your stalling less effective (fast ball carrier = fewer turns required for him to score = harder defence vs him). I can tell you more, when I play with my Elves or Skaven and I have a one turner (i.e. fast ball carrier) I don't even bother to defend and just aim to equalize with the 1TTD. This fact alone makes +MA super good in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a crusade against Sure Feet. There are other issues in this ruleset, but in my opinion +MA is too easy to achieve (and this is quite evident, because the stat boost rolls are automatic, once you earned enough SPPs) and too cheap, because moving is a gamechanging thing (the more squares a player can move, the more things he can do on the pitch due to increased area of movement). Movement can be a better protection than Blodge, because if you can move 9 squares your ball carrier can more easily just stay out of blitz range.
Sure Feet statistically is not always better than +MA. If you need to more 9 squares to score and you have a MA 6 Sure Feet player the chance to score without chainpush is 0%. With a MA 7 player you can still try to score.


About Thralls: +1 AV is an option, but I think that realistically speaking, vs Dwarfs having Wrestle spread around on Thralls would help a lot, both offensively and defensively. They would be more protected and more blocking-reliable.
98smithg



Joined: Oct 06, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 11:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Surefeet on balance is probably worse than +mv but it isn't strictly worse in all situations.

If you are Mv7 and need 9 squares to score for example, with no rerolls. You are statistically better having surefeet than +mv.
spelledaren



Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 12:16 Reply with quote Back to top

I feel like the low TV cost of MA and AV was decided because of their higher cost in SPP, not based on actual usefulness. Both should be +10.

_________________
FUMBBL!
uzkulak



Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 13:23 Reply with quote Back to top

spelledaren wrote:
I feel like the low TV cost of MA and AV was decided because of their higher cost in SPP, not based on actual usefulness. Both should be +10.


yeah exactly, you are sacrificing a lot more time and spp to get a *random* stat. If like me you have ever saved 30spp to find you rolled a stat you didnt need and ended up spending your upgrade on a double you could have taken 6 games ago instead, it certainly made me reconsider the value of +stats...
razmus



Joined: Jun 23, 2017

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 14:06 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
While we're fixing things in our minds, +ST should be 60k.


Naw... should be [Player's previous strength] * 20k gold.

So a normal St3 player going to St4 would be 60k.

But a snotling going from 1-2 should be 20k.
A goblin going from 2-3 should be 40k.
A BoB going from 4-5 should be 80k.
But a muscle bound mino going from 5-6 should be 100k.

_________________
OWRR20 is recruiting Rookie [SL20]
OWB is recruiting [SL20] Teams
BB2020 badges
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 15:04 Reply with quote Back to top

So 20k to double your strength and 100k for a 20% increase? Smile

_________________
Image
Star Only Roster - Testing
razmus



Joined: Jun 23, 2017

Post   Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 15:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Yep. 18SPP + one amazing roll for a St2 snotling, who will live for approximately negative three point four games... who would then be worth 5k less than the equivalent goblin. But once the little guy got to 2 ST, they'd be the most amazing snot EVEH! I'm reserving a little cardboard amazon box/coffin for them already.

I mostly suggest it to make BB Coaches do MATH! Wink

_________________
OWRR20 is recruiting Rookie [SL20]
OWB is recruiting [SL20] Teams
BB2020 badges
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