mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
 Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 08:06 |
 
|
| Frowny wrote: |
Juggernaut- Additioanlly, cancels block on the defending player during blitz actions
Rationale: Block is the single strongest skill in the game. The only counterskill, wrestle, is still not quite a counterskill, as it still leaves the block player in an OK position (no turnover, opponent is on the ground) Adding a 2nd counterskill seems reasonable. Also an indirect buff to minotaurs and rat ogres especially who are currently the weakest big guys. Also a slight buff to nurgle/chaos/renegades, who are all on the weaker end. I think they would all pick this on 1-2 players for blitzing purposes.
|
Since Piling On can't be spammed Juggernaut has become much stronger and I see it a lot more, mostly to create space when the other team positions too well or has some Stand Firm.
Don't really see why this second function should fit in fluffwise or why a skill should be buffed for two Big Guys (they might suck, but if you have no Big Guy yourself you still need to dedicate players to top the ST5).. especially as they benefit from Juggernaut already.
Regarding Wild Animal, I would say it portrays very well an animal that does not as being told. But still being aggressive and self aware enough to defend itself and its property. Rampaging blindly is already more represented with the Ball & Chain and Bloodlust skills.
I very much support the House Rule for Sneaky Git, enabling banned players to sneak into the KO box and maybe come back into game. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 12:32 |
|
A Wild Animal should not be easily controlled, I agree, but a Wild Animal standing still without trying to get close to somebody doesn't make sense.
He should move and hit in an uncontrolled way when failing the test and Ball & Chain would represent that well.
Blood Lust could work too but would make Wild Animal players even less appealing than they are now.
Wild Animal makes the player hard to control only if you don't declare Block/Blitz, otherwise he is as controllable as an Ogre.
The only difference is that the Wild Animal needs a 4+ to do other actions, so Wild Animal rule fails big.
When failing to be controlled he should still do something, not just roaring still. |
|
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 13:12 |
|
Btw, what did OP mean by juggs cancelling block?
I get that you trip the opponent into prone position BUT do you roll injury roll?
If that would had been just push player back and trip it BUT NO ARMOR maybe then its less OP than it sounds initially. I dunno how you guys read that - with injury or without. (Lorewise i thing it could be explained that "player with juggernaut pushes another player hard backwards" but doesn't actually punch the player -> no armor dice rolled.
But juggs already cancels wrestle so if juggs would cancel block maybe something would needed to be done to wrestle forming a rock paper scissors with wrestle juggs and block? |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 19:43 |
|
I tried to give you a glimpse of my reasoning for every proposal.
| Frowny wrote: |
I'm surprised at how many people are resistant to change. |
It's not resistance to change "per se", I think. It's more of a "be very careful not to fix what ain't broken".
In my opinion Blood Bowl is incredibly well balanced as far as complex games go.
Sure, there are better teams at X tv and better teams at Y tv, there are good and bad matchups, and there are consistently good teams compared to others. But considering that it tries to balance 24 different races and rosters at variable TVs, with variable skill/counterskill matchups and variable kinds of games (no progression tournaments vs perpetual leagues vs one-off games), I'd say it is incredibly close to be, for all purposes, an extremely balanced ruleset as it is.
And "balanced enough", while admittedly still leaving a lot of room for improvement, also requires particular care not to make it broken. Any substantial rework of the rules is much more likely to ruin the thin balance we have now than improve it.
That's why I am always cautious when new rules are suggested, and I think the same holds true for a lot of other peoeple. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 19:58 |
|
BB doesn't try to balance 24 different races.
There are tier 1 teams, tier 1.5, tier 2, tier 3.
Also, there are some things, like Sweltering Heat, that can massively swing a game, even if 2 mirror teams are playing.
Trying to improve the balance (or, to say it in another way, to reduce the unbalance) would not risk to make things worse than are now, and without trying to change things we would still be playing BB 2nd edition or 3rd edition.
Sure, perfect balance is impossible to achieve, but there is lot of room for improvement. After all, the current version of BB is far from perfect, it just looks better compared to the former ones.
The issues are that GW doesn't care about balance (game designers are clueless, they don't even play the game as much as Legend coaches do) and the coaches seem to like keeping the ruleset status quo for some reason.
There were people stubbornly refusing to nerf Cpomb but after PO has been nerfed the tactical aspect of the game has improved and more people play in the Box. |
|
|
Tripleskull
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 20:27 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | I tried to give you a glimpse of my reasoning for every proposal.
| Frowny wrote: |
I'm surprised at how many people are resistant to change. |
It's not resistance to change "per se", I think. It's more of a "be very careful not to fix what ain't broken".
In my opinion Blood Bowl is incredibly well balanced as far as complex games go.
Sure, there are better teams at X tv and better teams at Y tv, there are good and bad matchups, and there are consistently good teams compared to others. But considering that it tries to balance 24 different races and rosters at variable TVs, with variable skill/counterskill matchups and variable kinds of games (no progression tournaments vs perpetual leagues vs one-off games), I'd say it is incredibly close to be, for all purposes, an extremely balanced ruleset as it is.
And "balanced enough", while admittedly still leaving a lot of room for improvement, also requires particular care not to make it broken. Any substantial rework of the rules is much more likely to ruin the thin balance we have now than improve it.
That's why I am always cautious when new rules are suggested, and I think the same holds true for a lot of other peoeple. |
I could hardly disagree more. 
I think it would be very easy to fix some of the worst imbalances, even if perfect balance is unattainable.
And if it was done cautiously it should be absolutely possible to balance the skills better making for more fun and variation in skill picks and fewer skills almost never picked.
I have no illusions that any of this will happen, but so long as you found the right people to do it I would welcome it with open arms.
I am not sure I trust The current crew at GW with the task though, so that complicates matter a bit, in the hypothetical situation where the task was undertaken. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 20:40 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: |
That's why I am always cautious when new rules are suggested |
| Tripleskull wrote: |
And if it was done cautiously |
It seems to me we agree, then.  |
_________________
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 20:52 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
There are tier 1 teams, tier 1.5, tier 2, tier 3.
|
I love how people always dissect the wording instead of discussing the spirit.
Anyway, true, you are obviously right, there's tiers. But tiers are not set in stone. They are variable, and that's exactly my point. I'd argue a human team is a formidable opponent at tv1000 for both chaos and darkelves but much less so at tv 1800, for example.
Also, even if tiers WERE set in stone (and they are not), the higher tier has just an advantage, not an overwhelmingly higher chance of winning even against a lower tier team (for the purpose of not dissecting the wording, let's leave bottom-tier joke teams out of the equation, please).
The game is a game of dice, and it contains a lot of choices and counter-choices that make the game (almost always) fresh and quite unpredictable. To me, that's a sign of a decent level of balance. Of course I understand if people disagree.
As for the heat, we've already had this conversation and I won't have it again. You want a less-random game and that's fine, but it has nothing to do with balance. The heat can hit both teams randomly, so, it IS balanced. Just, in your eyes (and many others) not funny when it happens. But balance is another matter entirely.
As for the rest of your post: go read what I wrote on page 2. I offered advice about Frowny's proposals, and I even said some were reasonable and I would back them up (at least for testing).
I'm not against change. I was just saying that things must be done with caution or the whole thing is likely to crumble. Many of your proposed changes make sense, for example,but trying to implement all of them in a single rework would probably be a bad idea. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:11 |
|
Heat hitting both team is not balanced, because not all the teams have the same amount of key players.
While an elf team can generally afford to lose 2 random players without suffering too much (there are exceptions, I know) a Khemri or Lizardman team not able to deploy 2 Tomb Guardians or 2 Saurus loses more. This is unbalanced before it happens, because the risk of losing 2 players for elves is generally not comparable to the risk of losing 2 players for Khemri or Lizardmen.
Pouring Rain is a nightmare for Khemri, while not an issue for elves.
We could play a game deploying 2 teams then tossing a coin to decide who wins.
BB doesn't last 1 second, but 1 hour.
The potential of some events totally out of coaches' control ruining 1 hour should not be underestimated and should not be allowed.
It's the perfect balance in the long run, but it makes the game not interesting to play.
Long run balance doesn't equal good balance.
For example, if an Amazon team plays vs a good distribution of different races and not just at low tv, but even at mid-high TV, its win rate is ok, but if the Amazon team plays vs Dwarfs or Chorfs the win rate drops a lot. The problem of the BB "racial balance" is that it works quite well assuming a good distribution of races and assuming that a team doesn't sweetspot. Both things are not assured.
There would be a better balance if the Amazon team were a bit weaker at low TV and a bit stronger at high TV.
That said, no need to implement changes all in a single rework, baby steps could work fine.
For example, I think many people would agree that nerfing Heat would improve BB, as making KO rolls less random (with +1 modifier after every failed attempt).
About tiers: I know they are not set in stone, my point was just to show that BB is not balanced as you claimed.
I agree with you that the level of balance is generally quite acceptable (otherwise I would have stopped playing ), but on the other hand is still far from good balance. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:24 |
|
I'm not going to derail the thread but let's take your last example, KO rolls.
It seems like a innocent proposal. But why do you feel the need for it? The tools to deal with bad KO rolls are already in the game: you can buy more players to counter them. If you choose not to because tv management is important, then that's a choice.
If you have 14+ players you are almost guaranteed (let's talk average) a full team for the second half, even against a very bash-oriented opponent. Sure, 14-15 guys create Tv bloat, but think about it as an insurance. Why should the game be twisted into reducing the randomness for you and make the possible need for an insurance less relevant?
See, if you reduce the randomness, the "best choice" for any given problem becomes more evident and universally (instead of situationally) true. This produces two effects:
1- it "flattens the learning curve", so to speak, making the game less deep, and more importantly
2- reduces the diversity, making the game more predictable, less varied, and ultimately less interesting.
These, to me, are both heavily undesirable outcomes. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:30 |
|
I could have a bench of 1000 players, but if a Tomb Guardian (insert your favourite key positional) stays KO a skeleton will not replace him properly, positionals are limited, having a bench will not allow to make up well for their loss.
Today I played vs Amazons, it didn't matter in the end but I had a Bloater ko for most of the game and I had 14 players (match page or it didn't happen: https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=4197914, you can see that Flagrus has played only 4 turns).
In that particular match wasn't important, but vs a mirror team/better coach starting with one less Bloater would have made a difference.
Mind, in isolation seems a minor thing, but some matches you can suffer above average CAS + failing KO recoveries. Of course failing a KO roll in itself is not a tragedy, but I remember more than 1 game where I had like 4-6 KO players failing KO tests several times.
Mitigating wild randomness doesn't make the game less deep, it's the opposite, it's the too much influent uncontrolled randomness that makes the game frustrating and less interesting.
When I'm defeated by a random event I can't control (failing KO recovery or another one or a streak of bad events) I don't learn anything.
Game should be focussed on tactical aspect, with some randomess yes, but not potentially too influent.
Game should be played and won by coaches first and foremost, not by events.
And I know that dealing with randomness is part of coaching skill, for example I can set up to counter a Blitz! event, but I can't set up to avoid a rock or to improve the chance of recovery rolls. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:42 |
|
The thing is (and believe me, I'm not trying to be a smartass), I think you wouldn't be able to tell me where you would draw the line.
One day you win and every rule is fine. The next day you lose to bad KO rolls, and all of a sudden you feel the need (in good conscience) to propose a 4+3+2+ rule for KOs in order to avoid the randomness.
Then one day you lose due to a snakeeye, and suddenly you propose that dodge should give elves, who are unnaturally nimble, two rerolls instead of one, because failing 1/36 is absurd in a game where coach skill matters... 1/128 would be acceptable.
See what I mean? Everybody would draw the line in a different place based on mood, personal experience, skill, and a myriad other factors.
You either play Chess or you don't. Once you make peace with the idea that you don't, "how much random is too much random" is not a hill worth dying on, because that's different for everybody.
edit: grammar |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %17, %2020 - %21:%Jun; edited 2 times in total |
|
Tripleskull
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:45 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | JanMattys wrote: |
That's why I am always cautious when new rules are suggested |
| Tripleskull wrote: |
And if it was done cautiously |
It seems to me we agree, then. |
Hehe. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 17, 2020 - 21:59 |
|
I'm sure I would be able to draw the line and stop.
I don't think to be perfect (I'm critical of myself, otherwise I would still be a bad coach, criticism helps to explore us and the reality around us), nor I think my house rules are, but I would be ready to change them if necessary, no need to set them in stone, there could be unpredictable effects requiring changes indeed. I wrote them because it's easy to say: "let's change BB" but showing some house rules as example provides something to discuss about, otherwise it's just an abstract debate.
Dynamic balance is possible (that means changing a rule if it shows to break the game), after all BB is complex but not as modern real time games.
Also, although I favour to play agile teams, I'm not biased towards them, I think that all races should be balanced, that would improve the variety across different TVs. As the game is, it forces coaches to sweetspot if they want to play to win and some races can't just be played at high TV, unless you don't care to lose.
And (I say this with a friendly and polite tone ) please get over with bringing Chess as example as opposite to randomness in games: there are many shades of randomness, a coin toss without modifiers is not comparable to rolling a d8 + modifiers, both things are random, but there is an abyss between them.
You can't compare an axe (the coin) to a surgical knife (d8 + modifiers): the modifiers make coaching and positioning have more impact on the game, as reducing slightly the automatic flop/automatic success chance.
Also, as I said, Chess is deterministic game, I'm not interested in deterministic game.
Randomness improves replayability and adds fun to the game, in the right amount.
More granular randomness is better than less granular randomness, unless the more granular randomness makes the game terribly hard and slow to be played in a reasonable amount of time.
So, I think that using a d20 or a d100, for example, would make the game too hard to be played as fast as it's now (fast relatively speaking, there are more time-consuming boardgames), but with a d8 it would still be fast-paced without being super complex, i.e. the right compromise, in my opinion.
BB was born as a beer and pretzels game, so I think that it should not be too complex to stay true to that spirit, but it would be better with some tweaks mitigating the randomness of the the current system. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %18, %2020 - %12:%Jun; edited 3 times in total |
|
darkcyde
Joined: Jun 15, 2020
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2020 - 01:07 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
That said, Wild Animal rule doesn't portray well a player rampaging and blindly hitting team mates and opponents, a more fitting idea could be turning the Wild Animal into a random ball & chain (but without being injured automatically when Knocked down or Prone) with MA 3 when failing the Wild Animal test.
Roll a d6 before moving each square:
1,2,3 = the opponent decides the direction and uses the throw-in template to move the player.
4,5,6 = you decide the direction and use the throw-in template for moving.
But that's just a quick idea, I guess that reducing the dice roll for non-Block/Blitz Actions from 4+ to 3+ would still be quite ok. |
I like the idea but maybe on a failed roll the wild animal stalks around randomly hitting things nearby. Using the D8 scatter template, determine which direction the wild animal moves. It will move in that direction, if there is a standing model it will throw an unassisted block against that model following up if possible. Do this a number of times equal to half the wild animals movement round down. |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
