44 coaches online • Server time: 12:27
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Speccing and Playing...goto Post Southern Wastes Leag...goto Post Theory-craft League
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 18:46 Reply with quote Back to top

oh yeah, dont get me wrong it is a good thing, but its still no deterent to Pile On. you can easily guard agains these players getting fouled and as long as being prone is safer than standing which is statstically still the case then there is a problem imo.
Nightbird



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

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

Aaaaaaaaaand w/ Pgoo's last post I will quit reading this thread as he is spot on & made me realize that I've likely wasted 3 hrs of my life listening to pointless ramblings & ego wars when I could have been playing BB! Very Happy

_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
Beerox



Joined: Feb 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 19:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Synn wrote:
It's called giving him the full Siragusa. That is how you pile on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9_Rr-YNdYY

__Synn


Goose must have some other skill... He didn't even pause to evaluate armor and injury rolls. It's almost like he had to decide whether or not to pile on prior to rolling the dice.
Idea
PsyPhiGrad



Joined: Dec 22, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 19:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
and as long as being prone is safer than standing which is statstically still the case then there is a problem imo.


I've always wondered what kind of drugs the designers were smoking when they decided that it was okay for it to be safer to be fouled (where there's a risk of ejection) then be Piled Upon. What colour was the sky in their world? And how was this not spotted in any discussion and/or playtesting? Doubly so when they also made Jump Up much more widely available.

I have a hard time taking any such designer seriously when they propose to rectify the problem, especially if they haven't accepted this glaring flaw in their initial design.
Woodstock



Joined: Dec 11, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 19:23 Reply with quote Back to top

PsyPhiGrad wrote:
Garion wrote:
and as long as being prone is safer than standing which is statstically still the case then there is a problem imo.


I've always wondered what kind of drugs the designers were smoking when they decided that it was okay for it to be safer to be fouled (where there's a risk of ejection) then be Piled Upon. What colour was the sky in their world? And how was this not spotted in any discussion and/or playtesting? Doubly so when they also made Jump Up much more widely available.

I have a hard time taking any such designer seriously when they propose to rectify the problem, especially if they haven't accepted this glaring flaw in their initial design.


A coach named Flix already said back in 2006 the combo was too strong. His suggestion was to remove the reroll for injury part.

Source: http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19643
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 19:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Yup, I saw that one too Very Happy he is a great guy and very wise, and have you seen the idiotic responses he got from the fools on that forum as well. Madness.
for starters this -

Galak wrote:

Fend
Sneaky Git
Dirty Player
Wrestle


laughable
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 21:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi all,
HarvestMouse, sorry for the delay, I'll reply to your thoughts over the weekend.
Right now my sons birthday is looming ever closer Wink

Anyway, a few comments on the discussion that has developed:
Synn said:
Quote:
This would be precisely why playing here is important for crafting a ruleset (talking to Plasmoid.... but it also applies to Harvestmouse). TT doesn't often produce teams with 100+ games.

Indeed. But replies on this thread have been very clear: Not going to happen! Unfortunately.
But I'm still hoping that these rules would work on both a TT and an online setting.

Now - about SE, IIRC:
SE are kind of the new ageing. It keeps a lid on team development.
The point of SE was to create a soft cap to TV. The ever increasing winnings deduction is to prevent teams from reaching too high TV. The rule was designed to work with the Bank. With not too much more than 100K stashed, the stash can be drained by high SE's, making all high-TV teams vulnerable to player death/injury.

When JJ vetoed the Bank rule, he allowed teams to stockpile a lot of cash, basically allowing them to ignore SE for very long periods of time.

Problem? Well, IMO, the problem is that at high TV, the balance in BB gets skewed. In BB there are basically skill teams and stat teams, and the more TV can climb unhindered, the more the rules favor the stat teams. Stat teams with tons of skills are awesome. Skill teams with lots of skill get a lot less awesome. I think that a 250TV chaos team or elven team is very hard to handle!

PainState said
"it forces you to allways play in the 1400-1900 TV range."
Actually, -3 to winnings can be manageable for quite a while. The intent was the teams could go to roughly 220TV. When JJ nixed Bank, the result is that especially chaos teams can nest in at 2500TV, where they are absolutely gruesome. (At least in a non TV-matched environment).

Cheers
Martin
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 07, 2012 - 13:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi HarvestMouse,
I'm guessing you haven't been losing any sleep over this - even so, I sincerely apologize for the delay. A few things hit the skids. I can't really change much this late in development, but I figured I'd explain some of the choices made, and dream of even better grades Very Happy

Quote:
Orc: blitzer pricing: Great, 10/10

Very Happy

Quote:
Underworld: Hmmmm 10k discount on rrs means going into 5ks. 3/10

Ouch. I meant 10K off the printed cost, so I'm not going down the road of 5k-prices. I hope that makes it more paletable. 60K rerolls probably aren't that controversial Wink. Same goes for Ogres, Gobbos and Flings, I imagine.

Quote:
Halflings: Catchers and Linemen are a nod to 2nd edition and a good idea for an alternative roster. I like the idea of giving them the chef back and an allied position (elf lineman like pact seems a good idea) or a 3rd tree, this was the way to go in my opinion (if the aim is to narrow the tiers). 5/10

The AG4 halfling catchers were admittedly my 3rd option - but it is a nod a to 2nd ed., and to a lot of fluff that describes halflings as a very agile race. (2nd ed. ½ling catchers were AG5). I do like the thought of an elven player - I tried something similar with the Dryads - but in the end I decided that it was more important to make existing teams (minis) still good with the new rosters. Same with the 3rd tree, (well that, and 4 trees are scary! Cool)
In the end I ended up wondering: Which halfling positional could possibly make a significant difference - AG4 seemed the only real solution.

Quote:
Ogres: Well it’s an improvement of course, but not so much. Difficult roster to balance though. 6/10

Actually, the experienced ogre coach in the playtest tournament says it makes quite a lot more difference than one might expect. Might be best of the stunties.

Vamps: Yeah Thrall buff works. I think 6338 50k would still have been a buff though. The TS way troubles me fluff wise, why do 2 humans have 2 different stat lines? 8/10
Ideally, the thralls would be 45K Wink. But I think they're notably weaker than the 6337 dodge & 6337 block players that go for 50K. If they turn out overly good, 50K might be the easy fix.
As for the statlines, it seems to me that humans are essentially 6337+skill. Norse have block, amazons have dodge, "humans" have AV+... and thralls get Thick Skull Smile

Quote:
Goblins: 3rd troll, great! RR pricing see underworld. I was disappointed to see the lrb 5 dps removed. I’d like to see them come back. 8/10

See underworld. DPs? I don't remember that. But I love the 3rd troll - potentially 4 trolls for a lot of mayhem (which is another reason I wanted something else for the ½lings).
It might also be worth pointing out that the new SG has gobbos written all over it Very Happy

Quote:
Humans: Yup this works for me. 9/10

Very Happy

Quote:
Khemri: Seems a step in the right direction. I don’t have the experience to say whether it’s the perfect buff or not. 8/10

I can certainly live with the 8 out of 10.
Personally I'm excited that such a grindy and rather weak team don't just get a buff, but get a buff that set them apart from the other grindy sides.

Quote:
Dwarfs: Hmmmmm in some ways I like this and some I don’t. My first thoughts were slayers should start with block, then I thought why do they? What I think it would mean is that Dwarf coaches may only ever use 1, which is a shame. 4/10

That would be sad. I don't think it would happen, but that's for playtest to tell. IMO they're still excellent value for money. And I think this makes them more openly suicidal - which is what slayers are all about Shocked

Quote:
Wood elves: Again I’m not sure. 5/10

It's a tricky one.
I wish the BBRC had gone after the wardancers in the first place, and left the catchers alone. But I do think that wardancers are too dominant a force in short play and tournaments - and they ain't too shabby in long play either, especially now that they'll be a tad harder to kill.

Quote:
Undead: Yeah I generally like this, but again I don’t see the need of ‘bolted’ on skills like grab. Yes to the G access, No to the Grab. 6/10

I don't think the bolted on skills are 'bolted on'. I think Juggernaut and Fend are perfect replacements for Slayers and Wardancers respectively. Grab is admittedly the least 'spot on' fix. But much like BT I do think it fits reasonably will with the image of slow shambling death that is a Mummy. Alternatively, Piling On could have been a cute replacement for Mighty Blow Laughing. Either way, from playtest, slower access to SPPs and to removing opposing players seems to be making a substantial difference.

Quote:
Amazon changes: I’m not sure. All A access seems a bit too good, and is Wrestle a nerf? Maybe on S access players. I think I’d give them 4 A access players or 6 maybe (giving the throwers A access too) but not the hole team. Wrestle idea is worth trying. However diving catch on the catchers? I hate bolted on half worth skills like this. After rethinking, wouldn't Wrestle be an initial boost and a long term nerf? lowering my score to 2/10

Ah, I saved this for last, because it is so tricky.
First off, I think I've seen 30 amazon rosters, and nobody seem able to agree on a damn thing.
So this is my shot at a simple (and paletable) fix. I'm perfectly aware that that may not be the best fix.

I'm not an accomplished amazon coach, so I discussed this with a few more experienced ones. The majority thought that the wrestle thing would be a nerf. So do I. I think block is always a great starting skill for the LOS offence (wrestle not so much). More importantly, I think blodgers play a huge role for the starting team, and wrodge just doesn't give the same protection. In a tournament setting, blodge guard is also a heck of a lot better than wrodge guard.

I think it would be a substantial blow short term, but also somewhat painful long term - which is why I extended the A-access to everyone.

A lot of respondents commented that it would make the catchers redundant. I don't necessarily agree, but the complaint was so common, that I added Diving Catch - some feminine finesse. 'Bolted on' as it may be, I like anything that will make their catchers (and their throwers, by extension) a more viable choice. Linemen and Blitzers seem to be the crucial parts of the team ATM.

Teams: 74/120. Not stellar. Not too shabby either Very Happy

Rules.

Quote:
1a. We all know PO needs a serious look at. So sure, why not try this idea. Maybe it isn’t nerfed enough, see below. 7/10

Like I've said, it knocks roughly 1 fifth off the damage.
I think that walks the line well. I think PO (and SE) are still needed to keep the elfs in check.

Quote:
1b. The claw nerf is in association with PO, which it shouldn’t be. I don’t really see a problem with claw as a skill. 1/10

Not sure what you mean.
The nerf only affects Claws ability to combine with MB on the armor roll.
Claw as a stand-alone skill is unchanged.

I do think from the sheer volume of whining that tweaking Claw ever so slightly is prudent.
That being said, I personally advocated just messing with PiOn, but I had to make a compromise here. But main reason for the claw change - and a reason which I do think is valid - is that without it, the 2 skill combo of Claw+MB would be so much better than MB+PiOn, that it might play too much into the hand of Chaos coaches. So in the end I'm happy with the compromise.

Quote:
2/3. Yes I think fouling needs a buff. This is worth trying. I wouldn’t like to see fouling going back to the power it had in lrb 4 though. To me this looks more akin to 4 than CRP. Still without trying we won’t know. 6/10 for fouling 5/10 for sneaky git

I wouldn't want old fouling back either.
The +1 is a nice bonus, but I think the new SG will mean the return of dedicated foulers. Playtesting will tell. (But gobbos will love SG either way Very Happy)

Quote:
4. Bank rule, yes I think we all know this is better than what we have now. 10/10

Very Happy
Can I just add that Bank is what was playtested (to the best of our ability) and JJ vetoed it without the chance to do any further playtest. It worked fine we all thought.

Quote:
5. I really don’t see the point in Spiralling Expenses. Why do teams need to be capped at all? Higher starting point is good, but harsher SE is a terrible idea in my opinion. 2/10

Well, JJ wanted a cap. At least it's a soft cap.
But I do see the point of it. There are several reasons, but, IMO, the important one is that if TV is allowed to grow with no cap, then the advantage tips heavily in favour of stat-starting-teams over skill-starting-teams. At TV220, the balance is still reasonable. At 250+ it isn't.
Or to put it in a way that everybody can understand: This sticks it to the elfs Very Happy

Quote:
6. I don’t have a strong opinion on the concession rule. If there is a problem with it, I wouldn’t look at it this way. I don’t really care either way though, or think it’s an important point. 5/10

Admittedly unimportant. Maybe even unnecessary.
But the reasoning is that usually concessions are given to the deadlies opponents. Double winnings will help these high-TV cas-dealing behemoths to stay above the cap for a very long time. Further brutalizing the underdogs.

7. New wizard pricing seems a good idea. 8/10
Very Happy

Rules 44/80. Just above average. Seems a lot of hit and miss here.

Overall 118/200. Not bad. But room for improvement. Still, this being FUMBBL, I'm very pleased Very Happy

Thanks for your contribution,
Cheers
Martin
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 07, 2012 - 13:28 Reply with quote Back to top

plasmoid wrote:


Quote:
Goblins: 3rd troll, great! RR pricing see underworld. I was disappointed to see the lrb 5 dps removed. I’d like to see them come back. 8/10

See underworld. DPs? I don't remember that.


I think he is refering to the pogo star player, he used to have DP in lrb5 i think?
Metalsvinet



Joined: Nov 03, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 08, 2012 - 09:30 Reply with quote Back to top

Yeah LRB5 pogo was dirty player, secret weapon for 40k instead of the 70k now.
juck101



Joined: Nov 16, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2012 - 11:49 Reply with quote Back to top

Synn wrote:
plasmoid wrote:
I wasn't trying to "find fault". I almost feel like I should apologize.


Imagine how well received you and crew would be if you either:

1.) Consulted us when writing rules
2.) Played here

__Synn


Without wanting to flame I can think of very few fumbbl players who wanted to test the lrb 5 vault rules. Very few would post on the forum and to be honest I feel the large fumbbl community broadly had no interest in change. But a vested interest in the outcome so I would consider your words very rude in light of the dialogue.

Personally I think this idea in some ways is worth looking at and welcome cross community talk. Clearly cyanide won't code anything to play test so at least fumbbl can offer some option of looking at the rule set.

I think it's been pointed the TFF board is weaker now and gw removed all such links to the lrb5 threads. Cyanide forum is full of idiots and the lack of moderators does not help. So IF something was ever going to happen I think the fumbbl forum is certainly a potential avenue for the dialogue. I have played here and will again I'm sure. I look at 100s of games here and read (and post) in the forums. Can I suggest as a fan of the game that this sort of thread be given some time even if it might drift into community differences that may never be resolved.

Ok the rules.
Right wish I had my vault thread. Why pile on if the effect is rubbish? I don't see it's worth taking with the nerf. However in light of he kill stack I guess it needs a change so let's try it.

All of the team changes are terrible with the exception of human and khemri needing a buff. I almost can't remember the last time a human team beat me and they need a tweak. Khemri were never that good and I can't see how he numbers ever suggested they were a powerfull side! Anyway fine with that

Sneaky git is poor and not quite we enough power to interact with PO so it feels moot point. +1 foul is fine and justified. Can't remember why it even got changed? (maybe chainsaws will remind me)


I like some of it, hate some of martins suggestions. However I welcome any community discussions as I feel the game has benefited for the BBRC and is certainly fun over many years.

The other elephant in the corner that needs to be addressed is match making fixtures. I'm very much a digital player nowadays and the environment also tends to blur how significant each rule works in that environment.
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 13, 2012 - 10:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Juck101,
I'm glad you like the 'BBRC' part of my rules. If the NTBB ends up being nothing more than a bridgehead for those rules (and the human/khemri change) then that's all very good in my book Smile

On that note:
a) I don't think the new PiOn is rubbish at all. A second injury roll with all modifiers is quite handy. There'll be plenty of whining, don't you worry Wink
b) SG - it's a bit interesting to me that on my NTBB thread on TFF, someone (Mossman) posted that SG will make fouling broken. And you think it will be worthless. Unsurprisingly, I think the thruth is somewhere inbetween Very Happy

Quote:
All of the team changes are terrible

All of them? Yikes.
Can ask - is it that you dislike the basic concept of narrowing the tiers? Or do you agree with the concept, but find that each team has been changed in a terrible way?

Cheers
Martin
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 13, 2012 - 10:55 Reply with quote Back to top

You have to address the fundamental flaws with bloodbowl rather than changing dodge to fend and mb to grab if making a balanced game is your goal.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
happygrue



Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Post   Posted: Mar 13, 2012 - 13:33 Reply with quote Back to top

JimmyFantastic wrote:
You have to address the fundamental flaws with bloodbowl rather than changing dodge to fend and mb to grab if making a balanced game is your goal.


No one is claiming that?

plasmoid wrote:
The NTBB (Narrow Tier Blood Bowl) Rules consists of 2 components:
1) The NTBB Rosters - house rule roster tweaks to half of the BB teams, to put all of the teams on more equal footing.
2) The CRP+ List: 8 house rules to improve CRP Blood Bowl


You are quoting changes from #1 and then claiming they don't address #2.
juck101



Joined: Nov 16, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 13, 2012 - 15:40 Reply with quote Back to top

I personally think sneaky git is weak and the tweak wont promote dedicated foulers from the ag spectrum. It's nice for goblin weapons but otherwise a poor skill. Change it and we can comment how it plays I guess

PO I think is not enough power on revision to justify picking it. So my thoughts are it will be played less and the number crunching will stop. I find the lower feedback from what we did in the vault shows it was a third class skill before and was not tested enough in hindsight with its combinations. However your injury reroll for going prone is a third class skill in my book so it won't be as popular and then one day it will go away. It's a tough skill as it has a huge drawback- in that going prone and removing tackle zones is normally considered bad

I can't see a problem with the PO numbers that were posted up for this rule from ianwilliams and I trust his logic on this one. I just think the penalty is not worth the reward. Considering it on orcs and dwarfs and maybe undead I think it's not worth them playing. It brings pain to the field for chaos and khemri so it's not going to disappear but I feel it's too weak overall. Again we need to test it really. No need to go round and round but my gut says it will diminish in popularity and therefore change the meta game
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