Lorebass
Joined: Jun 25, 2010
|
Why is thread even still alive? |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
 Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 10:50 |
 
|
| Desultory wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Desultory wrote: | | Please don't debate with the few people that seem to be averse to change. |
What does this mean? |
I saw your previous post before you edited it... It wasn't very nice, which is probably why you edited it.
|
Now that I've seen your answer, please refer to the unedited post. |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 11:28 |
|
Indeed. There really is no point in debating this. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I have said this before, but why not, I have some time this morning.
First you need to know your history.
In LRB4 skills had progressive costs. You gained skills for (the equivalent of) 1 TV for the first, 2 TV for the second, 3 for the third, 4 for the 4th, 5 for the fifth, 10 for the 6th and 10 for the 7th.
This was further complicated by the fact it was priced on SPP's not skills, so the above numbers are for when you received the skill. As you gained more spp towards the next skill, the cost went up. The true price could be said to lie in the middle of the range of prices it would cost you as you progressed towards your new skill.
Also legends continued to increase cost (176spp+) without ever offering greater return.
(as an aside a lot of 'un-nerf DP' campaigners miss that DP was incredibly cheap, bung it on as first skill on a cheap meat shield for 1 TV)
Also ageing was a thing. Meaning as players skilled there was an increasingly good chance they got worse and picked up a negatrait.
Also skills were not costed. +str had the same tariff as Diving Catch. Meaning doubles and stat ups were golden, as they cost the same as ordinary skills.
And doubles gave more options. As well as skills sets not normally available, as now, there were also skills (known as traits) in skill sets available to the player, but only selectable on doubles. We see the hang over from this in CD and mutations.
It was a terrible system. And massively open to abuse. If your team was lean (a lot of skills just taken, some +stats and doubles, no player over 4 skills) someone might have the same TV (equivalent) and yet have all rookies with one legend (costing base price + 35 and up TV).
A change to TV costed on skills instead of spp was sensible.
A change away from ageing to onfield deaths was sensible.
A change away from skills and traits to just skills simplified things and was an understandable design choice. (except CD)
But, to me, the change from progressive skill cost to flat skill cost (+ tariffs for lucky rolls) was a design choice about refocusing the game away from the collective of the team towards the individual players.
We went from striving to justify keeping legends, or even near legends, due their bloaty cost in TV not paying off, to the 'killers and fillers' model of today.
the change from a 7 skill legend costing 35+base price (and rising) to a 6 skill costing 12+base price (fixed) is huge. Especially if the player is a spp magnet. (claw+RSC in LRB4 and Clawpomb now, also one turners)
I agree the old progressive system was wrong, and over costed legends (and every player after 4, maybe 5, skills pretty much), while under costing doubles and stat+. But while we have flat costs it doesnt matter if we nerf Cpomb, or blodge, or one turners. Some legend stack will dominate.
Interestingly NAF tournaments 'cost' having 2 skills as SO huge they only occasionally allow it as a special thing, usually for a single player. Mostly restricting skills to a lone non double skill on each player. Let alone having a stack of skills.
I said at the time the big change no one talked about was skill costs from progressive to flat. No one agreed. No one even saw an issue there, and focused on their poor hurt cpombed arses.
But i was right then, and am right now. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 14:21 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: |
But i was right then, and am right now. |
And forever will be. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 15:07 |
|
One of the things that has to be understood when you promote a TS system is that the old custom TS weighting in box was penalising skills that whether they were available to all or not, cost the same (as PC's post outlines quite succinctly).
This means that when you make a generalisation like "CPOMB is underpriced", you're applying that to both eg. the CPOMB wolf (who is paying 30+30+20 for mb/piling on/block and costs 200k) and the CPOMB beastman (who is paying 20+20+20+20 for mb/c/po/b and costs 140k). Thus when you level a penalty for that stack of skills, you're hitting a player who's already paying more for it (and is roster-limited) the same as you would one who's paying a pittance (and isn't roster limited).
Equally so, when you do this for blodge(step), you're doubly penalising players who have to take it on doubles as well.
| Uedder wrote: | | PurpleChest wrote: |
But i was right then, and am right now. |
And forever will be. |
Hic iacet PurpleChest, rex quondam, rexque futurus. |
_________________
 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 15:13 |
|
So what you're trying to say is that Blood Bowl is deceptively complicated? And that maybe it will be trickier than it looks to actually add a TV tax fairly onto skill combos?
But we're only on page 4! 
Quick, let's do our best to bury all of this under 10 more pages of wisher-washey "Look at my Fix" posts!  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 15:17 |
|
PC, I was confused on your logic above of disliking the old SPP based points calculation, but wanting progressive skill values instead of flat skill values until I realised that the old SPP based system didn't take doubles and stats into account.
The main argument I see here is do people want to build a team with a champion or a champion team and how do we want to skew TV/TS/TR to get this end.
Without bringing back traits (making certain skills doubles) or creating a skill tier I think it would be easier to just adjust the TV/TS/TR call to increase the cost of each cumulative skill. So instead of each skill costing N and a 6 skill player costing 6N, each progressive skill costs an additional N and a 6 skill player would cost 21N(N+2N+3N+4N+5N+6N=21N). The factor increase could be played with to make this fairer. If you don't think a 6skill player is 3.5 times better than an unskilled plate than lower the incremental increase per skill.
I think any calc on skill stacking is too subjective to be worth the effort.
On a side note I miss traits, which is the other way to make certain skills cost more TV. I appreciate the new skill only route is simpler, but there was something satisfying with rolling a double and finally being able to get that sweet final skill to complement your stack. Imagine the change in dynamic if you had to roll a double to get Piling On or Claw or other useful stack skills. I know that with perpetual online environment that is FUMBBL that some players would be able to play infinite games until they got their perfect skill stack, but honestly if you have the time or luck to get a team like that you deserve it.
EDIT for the original poster multiple skills on the same player are underpriced. It doesn't matter what skill. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 15:45 |
|
we certainly could make a viable marketplace system that tweaked the ts costs until everything was of similar value. It might be fairly easy actually, at least at some sort of simpler system.
What is our ultimate long-term system goal though?
To make all skills get picked? to make it so that most skills have approximately equal value?
To limit power combos?
What about +stats? you need those to be balanced, but if they're truly balanced, it'd mean taking statups would be no better than taking other skills in terms of winrate, would that be fun?
Will whatever change we make lead to the game being more fun? |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 15:58 |
|
Huh? Stupid tablet |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 16:26 |
|
The flat system in itself is correct, in fact you should be running out of good skills at the third or so.
The fact that you can skill a player with six skills with outstanding synergy is problematic in several ways. Mostly because it means it's unappealing to choose a different path than such a one.
Generally skills should be either about equally attractive to take or inevitably have an own price tag attached.
Whether a skill is useful or not is not inherently tied to the number of skills on a player, nor is a player with several skills necessarily that much better than the sum of his parts.
Therefore the flat system makes sense.
If we went by a computer model instead I'd be advocating a health related model. Basically you start with a base sustainability (representing the turns he will spend on pitch) of a player and multiply that with his skills.
Certain skills such as Block and Dodge would be providing to sustainability, increase the multiplier and the skill and defacto make increase the player cost for aquisition of multiple skills.
But it's not practical in terms of a tabletop game. |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 16:50 |
|
In the vane of skill costs & TV, I'd like to see an option, in custom leagues, where we can create custom skill categories. This way you could bring back 'traits' by creating a new, separate, skill category that's customized for each race, when necessary, & require doubles for that new category. Then at least you could hike up the cost to 30K per 'trait' or whatever you decide to call the new category. And you'd be custom choosing which skills YOU feel need higher costs within YOUR league.
It's certainly not a complete fix as it wouldn't really be fair, IMO, to require doubles for something like 'dodge' on an elf team. Maybe a custom way to assign costs on skills would be a better approach, but that seems unlikely as it would probably require MOAR work 
Thoughts  |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 17:01 |
|
PC is alway right, except when he foretells his loss.
One day I'll understand one of Wreckage's arguments.
(ADD. I'm sure many say the same of mine.)
The idea of a market for skills makes no sense without scarcity - Block would get more expensive as more people take it.
No TV system can protect a community from optimization efforts - synergy in a player can get transferred among the team.
That doesn't imply we could not improve what we have. It means we stop trying to solve a problem we can't with pricing. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %03, %2016 - %17:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 17:22 |
|
The other thing we might be reacting to is the high ratio of skill cost to player cost. Would we be so sensitive to skill value if every player's cost was increased by 40% (ie Human Linemen cost 70k instead of 50k), and skill costs stayed as they are? Beginning gold becomes 1.4 MM so affordability is not an issue.
The only skills really worth 20k+ currently are the big ones, ie Block, Dodge, Guard, cpomb, Tackle.
NB: I like it, but I'm not playing custom leagues at this point. |
|
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 17:30 |
|
@Purplechest
You said;
"The problem is flat skill cost" in LRB6.
But TS "was a terrible system." in LRB4 also.
Mainly because of these problems that were fixed after LRB4?:
- "A change to TV costed on skills instead of spp was sensible."
- "A change away from ageing to onfield deaths was sensible. "
- A change so +str doesn't have the same tariff as Diving Catch etc.
So would a combination of LRB4 and LRB6, by bringing back 'progressive skills' or 'cumulative costs' on stacked skills not help the problem?
| PurpleChest wrote: |
it doesnt matter if we nerf Cpomb, or blodge, or one turners. Some legend stack will dominate.
|
I don't see why a change would have to be so extreme that it 'nerfs' these things? Just so they got priced more fairly. To some extent would be an improvement?
I would be interested in what other stack would dominate? I don't see why all stacks couldn't be 'priced in' as in the TS (team strength) system?
Do you think bringing back traits would improve things? |
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
