mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| bghandras wrote: | 1. Marauders are still strictly better than human linos, which i dislike. Beyond amazon linewoman, they were the essence of underpriced linos with great potentials. You seem to mitigate this, but not eliminate. I would suggest some tweaks.
2. High elves feel weak. Yes, great potential, but i have the "slann blitzer" feeling about them.
3. The Nurgle vs Khemri comparison feels wrong. Now Khemri has the VERY fragile piece, whereas Nurgle got the better one. Khemri is a little faster, but less agile, and less bashy. Does not feel right.
4. Extreme Orc and Extreme Ogre teams could feel similar. What about removing goblins from the orc roster rather than overpricing the blitzers? |
Getting back on track after a short segue...
1. I'm happy with the Marauders tbh. They're chaotic Humans, and now they're humans with M access so it fits well. They've already lost quite a bit so I didn't want to reduce them anymore.
2. I agree high elves are weak early on, and the 'slann blitzer' feel was sort of what I was aiming for. I've tried to make the 4 elf teams feel different, and this slow build great potential was an attempt at to differentiate them from Pros and Darkies.
3. It's a tough call, but I'm reasonably happy with it. I liked the Khemri being the fragile ones as they're ancient and their mummies were decaying before. Maybe I'll look at the rotters getting regen again, but it felt necessary after taking the pestigors away. I think they might be ok with existing rotters though just the same.
4. I'm not too sure what you mean by that one, sorry. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
 Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 19:09 |
 
|
I get it that you want to differentiate the High Elves from the others but a big part of BloodBowl is resurrection tournaments and short term leagues. With this line up you make them completely irrelevant in these formats IMO.
I am firm believer that High Elves need a boost to make them highly competitive against Dark Elves at any TV. I do not currently think they are competitive against them at a low TV or High TV currently. |
_________________
 |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 19:39 |
|
m__j, you've put a ton of work in so far which is truly admirable (I'm working on my own rules project so I know how engrossing it can be). I'm using your BBcode framework to structure the changes too, which wouldn't have happened without you. And I love rules discussions, especially where any changes could improve this game, which for all of its greatness still has a ton of potential.
Two points:
1) Your position as Fumbbl Staff means you won't get as much negative feedback. Be sure to keep this natural bias in mind before going too far down the road -- consider any negative feedback carefully, and take the positive with a grain of salt. It's the nature of the beast.
2) Chainsaw's comments were abrasive and rude, yes, but I find myself agreeing with almost all of his technical points. Most of the changes here feel wrong to me. I'd join the discussion if I thought it would be productive, but I'm firmly in the "change the rules first" camp -- just changing rosters isn't going to improve anything imo. The skills need a revamp in the next edition -- that's what I'm more interested in. I guess that means I'm naturally biased against your project -- nothing at all personal.
Anyway keep at it, the project has the virtue of being implementable once Custom League kicks in, while skill-related changes will not be (as far as I'm aware). I just wanted to speak up in dissent, hopefully you take it in the spirit it is written. |
|
|
Chainchoker
Joined: Jul 28, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 20:35 |
|
Thanks for this discussion - I've enjoyed reading through it all. It seems that regardless of disagreements, we all have the same desire to make Bloodbowl even better.
My only though is that Plasmoid's roster changes (http://www.plasmoids.dk/NTBB2015.pdf) seem to be more elegant, and less drastic than the one's proposed here. For example, his simple amendment to the High Elf thrower make their passing game shine from the off, whereas the suggestions here for that team completely alter their DNA.
Agreed, his use of 4AG on Halfling catchers would make OTTD too easy, and there are other changes which could be stolen from the OP, but the point I would like to make is that his roster seems to be the place to start if we are into subtle tweaks rather than radical overhauls. |
|
|
TrashMouse
Joined: Nov 28, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 21:30 |
|
I like the Nurgle changes, and reading through your listing, I would agree with giving Nurgle Warriors back Mutation access in exchange for the General Access. Block would make them monsters if they got it, but gaining that ooie gooie mutating goodness only on the warriors is what makes the team interesting. If would make them a larger risk to play, while not taking away from their current tool kit too much. They will still be powerful, but all they would need is a single double to get Claw, easily getting Mighty Blow, Piling On, Block and what have you.
Switching General access to doubles (As per the norm for larger players) and Mutation to singles would give them more versatility as per the set. With the access to mutations, claw is only one option, there are others and with some skill ups, it makes them viable to even be a ball runner, where as with G/S they are bruisers and powerhouses and that is basically it. General has block which is a top tier skill anyways, and the chance of not getting a double on him doesn't completely destroy him. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 22:46 |
|
I am writing with the purpose of clarification.
1. Orc / Ogre - 4 goblin & 7 ogre would feel similar to 1 troll & 4 bo & 4 goblin &2 other. I get that they are not 100% the same, but they feel too close. This is not a concern about power, but concern about differentiation. (And there is the goblin team, too)
2. I would support to move khemri towards extreme mutations instead of block. Would also support to revert the rotters back to original.
3. Agreeing (again) with NerdBird on the High elves. They lack the real kick at any point in comparison to the other elf rosters. They look absolutely different, but they are unfortunately too weak. I can see why they dont get block, but they also lack dodge, so there is no core skill on the roster. The passing game matching with pomb is a strange combination from tactical point of view.
4. Khemri - The issue is that being fragile is fine, but being fragile AND low agility is really bad. If that is the intention, but fine. My expectation was that you intended them to be Tier2. They are clearly not Tier2 at the moment. |
_________________
 |
|
TrashMouse
Joined: Nov 28, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2015 - 23:51 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | I am writing with the purpose of clarification.
2. I would support to move khemri towards extreme mutations instead of block. Would also support to revert the rotters back to original.
|
I think you mean Nurgle here. |
|
|
akaRenton
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2015 - 21:22 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | ranty ranty rant |
Good to see the break away from the site mellowed you somewhat. |
_________________
Dirty Cranberries - All zombie funtimes
Fumbbl Image Library - Free images to make logos, player bio pics etc |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
After the feedback I've had another go at the Nurgle. They're now more similar to their current roster. I think they'll find bashing just as easy as they do now, but should find winning harder (and keeping ball-carriers alive). I decided against dropping the G access for the warriors in the end, but removed it from the Rotters so they're an M access only player. This should bring the mutations more into play and make them more interesting.
@Fidius: Great! I'm glad to see someone else getting some use out of the template. This was originally meant to be a thread for people to post their own ideas too, so I'd love to see them. As you say though you've focused on rules changes, which I've deliberately avoided. I disagree that they can't make a difference. They maybe can't completely fix all of BBs problems in a way you could by changing rules, but they can certainly have an effect. Which changes feel wrong? I'd be interested to know. Negative feedback can be just as or more constructive than positive 
Also I wasn't fumbbl staff when I posted this up, or for over half of the responses so it wasn't something I'd considered. I'd like to think it didn't make a difference.
@chainchoker: I'd read through the plasmoid changes before. They weren't really what I was going for here; it's not all about balancing. A lot of them also are not popular, though I borrowed the ones I liked. I agree that those changes are more subtle, but I wasn't going for subtle 
@Nerdbird and bgh: With the High Elves I wanted a team that played differently to the other elves. The lacking of core skills was one of the things that made them interesting. I agree that they wouldn't be well suited to a resurrection style, but then there are other slow-build teams that also don't do well in that format. I think this team would perform well at higher TV though. The ability to field 4 players with Guard and Mighty Blow gives them some very different options to the other elves. I'd like to see this roster built up to 1800TV to try it out. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2015 - 15:36 |
|
Here is my go at a high elf roster.... I like the idea of giving every team access to a big guy. This team should be able to compete at low TV and play quite differently from other Elves if they want to. I took away G access from Linos because blodge is the staple of most elf teams. If Dwarfs are losing their tackle(which they should) I think this is the proper route to go to balance the overall game. For an High Elf to blodge up, it is going to require doubles.
0-2 Phoenix Warrior (Thrower)80K: 6348 Pass, Nerves of Steel [P,A,G access]
0-2 Dragon Warrior (Blocker)90K: 6348 Dauntless,Frenzy [G,S access]
0-2 Lion Warrior (Blitzer)100K: 7348 Block [G,A access]
0-2 Ellyrian Reavers (Catchers)100K: 8347 Catch,Dodge [G,A access]
0-16 Citizen Levy (Linemen)70K: 6348 [A access]
0-1 Pegasus(120K): 6439 Leap, Very Long Legs, Bone Head, No Hands, Thick Skull [A,S access]
Rerolls 50K
I also made everything expensive, because High Elves are expensive. |
Last edited by NerdBird on %b %22, %2015 - %16:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Personally I dislike non-humanoids on the blood bowl field, but maybe that's just my preference/bias. Wouldn't the pegasus need No Hands? |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
sheepycollins
Joined: Sep 21, 2015
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2015 - 16:12 |
|
Though I like the team's design I don't think phoenix warriors would be throwers more like lothern sea guard.
Imho elves need blodge and line elf should definitely have G access.
If I were to field phoenix warriors then to fit their whfb fluff I'd make them your carriers
7348 pro, sure hands GA / SP 90k
But that's me |
_________________
Things I like and things I hate? I don't feel like telling you that. My dreams for the future? Never really thought about that. As for my hobbies... I have lots of hobbies. |
|
sheepycollins
Joined: Sep 21, 2015
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2015 - 16:15 |
|
Oh that's what I wanted to say...
I agree no pegasus, if anything you might get away with str4 lion warriors but then you open a whole other can of worms |
_________________
Things I like and things I hate? I don't feel like telling you that. My dreams for the future? Never really thought about that. As for my hobbies... I have lots of hobbies. |
|
Wex
Joined: Apr 21, 2015
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2015 - 16:20 |
|
I'd modify the Pegasus to add No-Hands and give it AG4. AG3+VLL Leaper is kinda... Painful to field. Especially since it has ST4. Maybe ST4 and Horns.
0-1 Pegasus(120K): 6449 Horns, No Hands, Leap, Very Long Legs, Bone Head, Thick Skull [A,S access] |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2015 - 16:31 |
|
@ Wex I don't think we want an ag4 leaping pegasus! And Unicorns have horns, pegasus do not
@MJ and Sheepy: Pegasus is the same footprint as a Bull Centaur and yes, it should have no hands.
@sheepy: Phoenix warriors and NOS is perfect fluff wise. They never speak and are never frightened in the face of battle. I think that is absolutely spot on for a thrower when everyone is targeting you and blitzing you... |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
