64 coaches online • Server time: 14:46
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Logo editing : Wave ...goto Post Throw rah 3rd skillgoto Post Borg Invasion
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 16:37 Reply with quote Back to top

"it forces you to allways play in the 1400-1900 TV range."

You know, that's perhaps intended. Something I've seen in various games is when your team/character/car/spaceship/pirate/wizard/whatever gets ALL of the possible abilities and is fully developed, that it often is very unbalanced, and kinda breaks the game.. unexpected synergies. as it wasn't balanced for end game, it was balanced for starter players.

So limited the advancement your team/ninja/robot can attain is a safety net, to protect against untested levels of power potentially breaking the game.

Doesn't apply particularly to BB as you can have a legend player on a 1000TV team, and the individual players don't really have synergy with each other.

Still, SE is a can of worms I didn't need to mention really, but thanks for all the explanations. I now think its best kept Smile


Last edited by Sp00keh on Mar 02, 2012 - 16:44; edited 1 time in total
Tarabaralla



Joined: Jul 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 16:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Ugh... What was the topic about? Where are we going with this house ruling debate? Please Trollynn make it clear for us Razz

Anyway, I just checked the highest TV teams in B born under CRP... seems they are 2 Vampire and a Human one [!]
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 16:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Synn wrote:
Hitonagashi wrote:

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=277067


So your argument about a team getting a TV high enough to outpace inducements is to use a LRB team that hasn't played a single CRP game? Then you picked the LRB team with 2 off-book prizes? Finally a team that took part in numerous Fumbbl Bdays back when there were no injuries or aging?

__Synn


Yep. I think they would be a very large rarity...but it's possible.
Wild Wicked Witches
got up to 2700-2800ish when they were playing UI games.

And you can't make the argument about "off book positionals" at the same time as talking about an environment where one can win a FUMBBL major Wink.

When I think high TV teams that are only rolled out for majors, I think of Competitive Eaters. The problem is, the speed teams get games at that TV(given the cherrypicking like crazy requirement to maintain it), they take a *very* long time to develop.

To be honest, it's not really a problem, because I doubt anyone has the dedication to cherry pick constantly and also resist the temptation to enter a major with their team when it is "only" 2300ish (as majors cut any team down to size).
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Synn wrote:
Hitonagashi wrote:

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=277067


So your argument about a team getting a TV high enough to outpace inducements is to use a LRB team that hasn't played a single CRP game? Then you picked the LRB team with 2 off-book prizes? Finally a team that took part in numerous Fumbbl Bdays back when there were no injuries or aging?

__Synn


no he was pointing out that without SE as some crazy people Wink seem to be calling for, teams would be able to acheive this again and they would reach a TV where there were not enough inducements to ever make up the gap.

that was exactly what SE was for, and to that effect it works.

However it could still be higher imo, so there would be more variety. I think 2000 Tv would be a better starting point. But I do think SE is needed. They are the whole reason that the tournament scene is health in fumbbl now and not dominated by teams like competative eaters.

Though they are now dominated by something else all together, but thats a different issue. Smile
happygrue



Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 17:19 Reply with quote Back to top

I have been trying hard to stay out of this flameymahdo, but ... I guess not hard enough because here I am. A few points, directed at different people but with enough overlap I'm just going to list them.

1. It seems that the three expansion races are just not factored into this? There is no mention of them. Is that on purpose or because they are deemed fine as is?

2. Some things seem clunky to me, the [s]claw[/s] clawPOMB* fix or the banking disaster are not elegant for example, but overall I think the big question is would people rather play with CPR+ or with CRP? For me the answer CRP+. They aren't the rules that I would write but they would help address some of the worst problems and IMHO make a game where more races are viable - that is what I care about so overall I view this as a good thing. What makes me take this more seriously than other proposals is because it does have support from the TT community. Please don't PO me here, but this is far more likely to become something "official" than any of our ramblings. That's not to say it will be, but if the big TT tournaments switch over and we don't, for example... it just seams like something to consider.

3. I don't think that posting in the forum is the best way to [have] handle[d] this. There *is* at least some support for testing stuff. Kalimar added the "LRB 7" houserules to the league division for the purposes of testing them and asked for feedback. So far the feedback I have seen can be generalized to "I hate things and I won't play with them" or "they seem like good changes". (okay, a cheap shot, but no one I have seen who has dissed them has actually *tried* them yet)

Christer in this blog post has expressed a nuanced view on rules changes, but certainly seems open to action. I think saying "this will never happen on FUMBBL" is a waste of time. These are either good changes or not and should be debated as such. Surely it means *something* that they have the support of what is left of the BBRC.

My point here is that this is NOT a democracy. People posting about hating kittens in the forum will not change the number of kittens that are running amok on FUMBBL with their beady little eyes and their claws and... I digress. It will be up to the top dogs to ultimately decide what will or won't happen with the site. Get their support! If Kalimar wants to code the changes for [L] to test out then people will test them, otherwise this whole debate is pointless.

*edited


Last edited by happygrue on Mar 02, 2012 - 17:37; edited 1 time in total
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 17:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:

Though they are now dominated by something else all together, but thats a different issue. Smile


Those damn elves Wink
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 17:35 Reply with quote Back to top

I know thats tongue in cheek but yes, those damn elves. :insert a smilling face being sick here: lol

and Happygrue, would I rather play the official rules than CRP+ or what ever you want to call them. I would rather play CRP. Those rule changes are not good and all they do is make Elves even more dominant than they already are. There are plenty of nerfs to races and skill combos in there, but the races that seem to have benefited most from CRP to the point where they are quite dominant in new leagues is Elves, and there is nothing aside from the slightly more expensive wizard that is stopping them being even further ahead of the pack in those changes.

It would possibly help Blackbox be a little less of a bloodbath yes, but the main divisions on this site should never stray from the official rules, even if you hate them, and this is coming from someone that really thinks CRP is aweful.
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 17:58 Reply with quote Back to top

happygrue wrote:
I have been trying hard to stay out of this flameymahdo, but ... I guess not hard enough because here I am. A few points, directed at different people but with enough overlap I'm just going to list them.

1. It seems that the three expansion races are just not factored into this? There is no mention of them. Is that on purpose or because they are deemed fine as is?

2. Some things seem clunky to me, the [s]claw[/s] clawPOMB* fix or the banking disaster are not elegant for example, but overall I think the big question is would people rather play with CPR+ or with CRP? For me the answer CRP+. They aren't the rules that I would write but they would help address some of the worst problems and IMHO make a game where more races are viable - that is what I care about so overall I view this as a good thing. What makes me take this more seriously than other proposals is because it does have support from the TT community. Please don't PO me here, but this is far more likely to become something "official" than any of our ramblings. That's not to say it will be, but if the big TT tournaments switch over and we don't, for example... it just seams like something to consider.

3. I don't think that posting in the forum is the best way to [have] handle[d] this. There *is* at least some support for testing stuff. Kalimar added the "LRB 7" houserules to the league division for the purposes of testing them and asked for feedback. So far the feedback I have seen can be generalized to "I hate things and I won't play with them" or "they seem like good changes". (okay, a cheap shot, but no one I have seen who has dissed them has actually *tried* them yet)

Christer in this blog post has expressed a nuanced view on rules changes, but certainly seems open to action. I think saying "this will never happen on FUMBBL" is a waste of time. These are either good changes or not and should be debated as such. Surely it means *something* that they have the support of what is left of the BBRC.

My point here is that this is NOT a democracy. People posting about hating kittens in the forum will not change the number of kittens that are running amok on FUMBBL with their beady little eyes and their claws and... I digress. It will be up to the top dogs to ultimately decide what will or won't happen with the site. Get their support! If Kalimar wants to code the changes for [L] to test out then people will test them, otherwise this whole debate is pointless.

*edited


Steady on. I’ve quoted you, but this post goes further out than your one post. 

There’s always a fair bit of misinformation in rules threads. ‘X was intended by the BBRC’, ‘History is y’, ‘Here is Z (out of context)’. It mainly just flies by until the next rules thread, but in some cases, misinformation sticks and propagates. Misinformation rubs me up the wrong way a bit, not because it’s misinformation per se, I just like criticism to be fair. There’s lots of fair criticism that can be levelled, but it’s not always on the mark in these threads. 

Let’s not pretend that the rules as they are were made for online purposes, or that they are unpopular. They were made for tabletop, where they are much loved and well regarded. By any measure that you use, the brief was completed to an excellent standard, people are happy. That there is some FUMBBL noise and discontent is neither a) new (the LRB4 rules many hark back to had a constant stream of rules threads even back in the day) or b) entirely relevant. Unless a rules committee is formed in the future, there will be no new rules. If they are formed, will GW allow the internet to be considered? Dunno. You’d think so logically, but there again, real life seems to fail logically often.

Let’s not pretend these rules we’re debating are ‘supported by the TT community’. Only a very low percentage of said community are aware of their existence at all, and they’re only used in one dying out (apparently) online league. The idea NAF events would take them on is really pie in the sky; there is as much chance they’d go back to 3rd ed. i.e. zero to none. TFF, where these rules were debated, is viewed with contempt and all but ignored by most TT nerds I know, and the members of the ex-rules committee that have contributed to this are a) the members of the same committee that produced the rules you don’t like and b) have made very clear disclaimers these roster changes are fine for house rules, and for house rules only. The actual rules changes are suggested rules tweaks, and you either like them or you don’t, but would you take the advice of those that produced the rules you already dislike, which, again, are TT bias? And if so, why? Just because you’re desperate for anything else at all? Remember the full committee are all still alive and playing BB, and have not voted on these proposed tweaks in any way. ‘BBRC backing’, in short, is not factual. 

Let’s not pretend, either, that FUMBBL is disgusted with LRB6. Play has gone up since the new client, and is stable. Never, ever judge a mood by the ramblings in the forum of people that have more time than sense. If you house rule main divisions, I can almost guarantee you the fallout will be louder, the player base will go down, and we will hit the same trouble we had when the last days of LRB4 were upon us. That there is appetite for a bit of house ruling in League is neither here nor there really, little leagues with like-minded coaches are encouraged in the rules to house rule. We used to do it in LRB4, we just didn’t have it hardwired into the client, we just did it on an honour system, like random events ending a game 3 turns early and us clicking through, or something. We had a guy in the forum the other week claiming his RL league thought Slann were OP and they were house ruling, for instance. Fine, that’s how small communities work. But when you house rule open divisions for the many, bad, bad things happen. 

Finally, Christer and his appetite for change. I’ll believe it when I see it. And I won’t see it. I strongly believe. Feel free to quote this if we ever house rule open divisions, and I’ll send you a video of me eating my hat. 

This thread is like any other rules thread we’ve had since CRP came to town. Moot unless there is a move to make new official rules. It’s fun to debate stuff, fine to debate stuff, human to debate stuff. But it is, at the end of the day, pointless debate. That’s fine, but just recognise that’s what it is! Wink I don’t mind plasmoid having this thread 30 times, all power to him and his rules, even if I think he’s bonkers and I hate the very ideals that produced them. But I’d rather we all got on with what the majority are doing; enjoying BB. Playing with CRP. Until the day we’re tipped the wink we get to do something about it.

_________________
NAF TD.


Last edited by Purplegoo on Mar 02, 2012 - 18:02; edited 1 time in total
happygrue



Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
the main divisions on this site should never stray from the official rules, even if you hate them, and this is coming from someone that really thinks CRP is aweful.


What a convincing argument that is! Do you have a "keep stuff the same because it's the way that it is even though we hate it" newsletter I could subscribe to? Razz

Though I didn't actually suggest changing stuff in R or B...

happygrue wrote:
If Kalimar wants to code the changes for [L] to test out then people will test them, otherwise this whole debate is pointless.


EDIT: Just saw goo's post. The reasons you bring up are why I try not to get into rules threads anymore, because it is obvious that just haven't been around long enough to have a good perspective on this stuff. My noob reaction is, hey things would be better if... and then apparently nothing can change ever for vague reasons which are never clear to me.

I'll say again, there have been recent changes to [L] rules for playtesting. They are being playtested in the league division. All I am trying to say is:

These are some interesting changes, I like them overall, and if Kalimar and Christer decide it to be so than these things could end up in [L] for testing also. I should not have generalized the TT community, my point was really more of a hypothetical - if something where to happen where tournament rules are changed, wouldn't we also change the rules here? It was probably incorrectly stated - sorry!


Last edited by happygrue on Mar 02, 2012 - 18:07; edited 1 time in total
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Talking about the OP.

I like the idea of PO only works on injury roll.

Here is why.

There are 3 actions on a block
1) Block
2) Armor check
3) Injury check

So under the current rules the Block check is the same for everyone. Blodge has the advantage inless you have tackle. Most players with CLPOMB do not have tackle. Thus AV7 blodgers fear Tac/MB/PO more than CLMPPO.

No we look at the armor check. The problem with CLaw is that now everyone has AV7. By allowing reroll on the Armor check you increase the number of injury rolls. Now a lot of coaches argue that you do not want to PileOn if you fail to break armor with out the +1 to injury Or only reroll the injury roll, regardless of the +1 or not. Ok that is fine. Ok, so if you are a coach who advocates that you only PO if you break armor out right and PO with a +1 on injury you obviously dont have a problem with this. IF that is the norm on how coaches approach PO then it would seem there is no change to PO in its application.

But that is not how it works in the real world. Coaches do PO on the armor check very frequently. In fact the smart % move when it comes to causing a CAS is to ALLWAYS PO regardless of which roll, armor/injury.

You are playing with 4 POCLMB players. The smart play will allways be if they are receiving the ball to start the game you PO every single block. Thus if you are the facing this team you have to expect the first 4 blocks of the match you will get the PO. It makes total sense and is the smart opening move.

Now if you remove PO to armor checks it reduces the total # of injury checks your team will take in the match.

Thus the rule will reduce the amount of CAS the AV9 teams take from PO. Because now their rate of breaking armor is going to go down in the big pitcture.

The Squishy players like Dancers and Gutters are no longer subjected to the I allways hit the PO button regardless of situation, because I dont like gutters and dancers. Lets face it, if you get a Gutter down on the ground and fail to break armor you are going to PO, it is a must and the smart move.

So by eliminating the PO on armor check the heavy hitters need to perform a block succesfully and break armor on only one attempt.

That in its self will reduce the overall CAS rate.

Also the idea that everyone is playing on equal terms. Meaning the PO/MB guys usually only PO when they break armor naturally and get the +1. So the Claw guys do get the advatage of reducing armor to AV7 but everything else about the block sequence is the exact same for every player/race.

PO on armor check gives the claw players a HUGE advantage over PO/MB. Claw players are allways facing AV7, MB/PO are not. They have to factor in higher armor and the chances of succes more closely. So by eliminating the PO on armor checks the Claw guys and the non claw PO guys are subjected to the same factors when it comes to PO.

Now if you are a coach of a team who allways seems to be on the bad end of this PO situation, like woodelfs. You are playing against a human team with 4 PO/MB/Tack blitzers..You are going to get PO on armor check all day long for 16 turns. You injury rate will skyrocket. SO by eliminating the PO on armor check you atleast know that you will not get the PO on armor check which in the long run will promote good health of your team.

This rule favors the squishy races and nerfs the PO a little but not to the point of eliminating it from the game.

**********************

I also like the rule that allows the fouler to get +1 on the armor check roll.

The main problem with the new DP is that in order to get a foul that has a 6+ chance of breaking armor requires to many assists. You are playing against AV9 under the new rules you need 4 assists + the fouler to get to 6+ to break with +1 injury. Having to dedicate so many players to fouling reduces the effectivness of the fouling to a level that for some teams it makes no sense to foul inless you are playing against AV7 teams.

Under LRB4 rules the armor check was +3!!! on the fouller. Now you allways wanted the +2 to go to injury BUT atleast as the fall back plan you could foul with 2 assists and have a +5 on the armor check and feel confident you would atleast get a stun. If you did not break armor naturally.

We seem to focus on the rate of CAS on LRB4 fouling, which was great, But the main advanatgae of LRB4 fouling was you had a great chance to break armor with minnimum # of assits.

The new rules now force you to find ways of fouling where you can get 3+ assists with out moving the assist players. Thus grab is a great skill for fouling. You pick up your victim and plant him in the middle of 4 players who have not moved, send in the boot and then you can move the assist players away.

Bottom line for me. Anything that increases the chances of breaking armor and reducing the total # of assists to get atleast a 6+ on a natural break makes fouling more effective in the long run.

_________________
Comish of the: Image
Tarabaralla



Joined: Jul 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Purplegoo is my guru
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:10 Reply with quote Back to top

PainState wrote:

We seem to focus on the rate of CAS on LRB4 fouling, which was great, But the main advanatgae of LRB4 fouling was you had a great chance to break armor with minnimum # of assits.


Sorry but that is clearly nonesense Wink

The main advantage of LRB4 fouling was you got +2 to injury. A self assist +1 to av which was a good thing yes, but I doubt I could count on one hand the amount of people that used LRB4 +2 to av or injury specifically for the AV, far far more often than not people would reduce the opponents Av to 4 or less, then foul so that the +2 would be used for injury.

The +1 to Av is welcome back, I would love it to come back, but it still makes no real difference to fouling while you can only get +1 to injury max and as long as you can Pile On and Re-roll injury the safest place to be on the pitch will still be on the floor.
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:25 Reply with quote Back to top

Best thing about LRB4 fouling, massive gangfoul ensuring automatic +2 to injury killing your mens AHHH YEAHHHH !

_________________
Image
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:28 Reply with quote Back to top

The diffrence between our "views" Garion is that you are looking at this from the perspective of causing a CAS only.

Iam looking at these issues from the perspective of causing a stun or better. Now obviously Iam as blood thirsty as the next guy but the focus is misplaced when the discussion hinges around CAS or no CAS.

Fouling for a stun is not the best result but it is a result forcing that player who got fouled to miss a turn. That is an advantage. Not the desired result but a result none the less. Thus my view on fouling. Iam not advocating bringing back +2 on the injury roll. Iam advocating increasing the odds to atleast get the stun result with as few assists as possible and if I CAS great. LRB4 fouling it was a very rare event if you did not atleast get a stun. Now unde the new rules if you foul with 1 assist you are happy just to get a stun because the odds are not in your favor to get just that.

Same thing on the PO discussion. By taking away PO on armor checks you reduce the effectivness of breaking armor in the big picutre. Thus less total # of CAS dished out.

or anther way of looking at it. You cant get a CAS if you dont break armor. By taking away PO on armor checks, less armor checks are rolled leading to less total # of CAS.

_________________
Comish of the: Image
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:44 Reply with quote Back to top

JimmyFantastic wrote:
Best thing about LRB4 fouling, massive gangfoul ensuring automatic +2 to injury killing your mens AHHH YEAHHHH !


That is how you unnerf DP...You get a +2 on armor break and get the +1 on injury.

You have increased the odds to break armor big time as compared to now.

1)It increases the effectivness of breaking armor with out having to bring a lot of assists.

2)Increases the level of fouling

3)I will just deal with the drop in the odds of causing a CAS from 15/36 (LRB4) to 10/36 (CRP) (assuming you break armor with the +'s)

4)Will be happy as all get out that I dont need 7 assists + fouler to break AV8 on a 2+

_________________
Comish of the: Image
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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits