Tricktickler
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
|
 Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 20:04 |
 
|
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
I like the random factors but at the same time it would be nice if the outcome of a match was determined more by skill and less by luck.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
No. Team building (which is a very fun part of the game) would be pointless if inducements had the same value as increasing the TV. Non-progressive Blood Bowl (which is also fun) already exists as an alternative for those only interested in equal match-ups.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
There are several issues with CPOMB, some of them are:
* the current Claw rule results in a rock, paper, scissor kind of game since Claw affects different armor values differently
* clawpombing is to powerful as a tactic compared to how easy it is to pull of. (learning how to one turn score with a MA7 player is highly complex but will only increase the chance of winning a game very slightly while learning how to clawpomb is very simple but will increase the chance of winning a game very much).
* a game between two chaos teams where both have clawpomb will be much more luck based than a game between two chaos teams where none have clawpomb
* to much killing power focused on one single source creates negative emotions because you expect to lose a player every single blitz from that source. It's better when the attrition is more spread out and players die from more unexpected things like ordinary blocks and failed dodges.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
I guess it's about right.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
It's a good mechanic, but it can always be improved.
TV in CRP uses a better formula than TR did in LRB4.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
Spiralling Expenses are way to high at the moment. High TV elf teams should be able to afford a couple of reserves long term without having to build up a huge pile of cash.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
TV should only reflect how good the team is, not how good the coach is. I therefore don't like FF as a "success tax". I don't mind at all if some environments taxes coach skill (I think it's quite a good idea for some environments) but it needs to be done through another mechanism than FF, otherwise ALL environments will be affected. I therefore think FF as a "success tax" should be removed and instead it should be replaced by an optional rule with a much stronger effect which then can be used by the environments that benefit from it.
It's better to use TV++ specifically for the environments that benefit from it rather than imposing a mini version of TV++ on all environments (FF as a "success tax" can be seen as a mini version of TV++).
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
Most stars currently cost to much compared to wizards, babes and extra apothecaries.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
They don't need to be perfectly balanced. But I think they should be a bit more balanced than they currently are. Humans deserve a boost for example.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
No. It's fine as it is.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
No.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
I don't like aging but it's hard to see a better solution to prevent teams from becoming to big. The good thing about aging is that it affects high and low AV teams equally. Without aging you need to compensate it by letting Claw affect high and low AV teams unequally and that creates a rock, paper, scissor situation which should be avoided at all cost.
So all in all I want Claw to affect all teams equally, clawpomb to be nerfed overall, spiralling expenses to be decreased and aging to be returned.
Another good thing with aging is that it makes it harder to build teams consisting of 5 legends and 8 rookies which I've seen many complain about.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Nothing wrong with secret weapons but they are very badly implemented at the moment. Being forced to field them at turn 8 and waste all your secret weapons on a meaningless drive sucks. Simple solution to the problem: allow fielding less than 11 players. 3 players should be minimum though so that you cannot avoid the 3 blocks on the LOS.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Either remove it or double its cost. Or turn it into a card. Wizard should be a 200k card.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
As long as you can buy wizards gold already has a big use...
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
Nerf or remove the most powerful stuff like Blitz and Riot. A Riot that changes a 1 turn drive into a 2 turn drive is just frustrating and unfair. |
Last edited by Tricktickler on %b %28, %2016 - %20:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 20:19 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
Goblins and flings and "low tier" teams fit exactly into that world, easily. Because people were not playing a game for the sole purpose of "winning a game". The same is true of early blood bowl, in fact, true of almost any game if you don't reduce it to a hyper-competitive "winning is my only goal" scenario. |
I get your disdain for old RPGs game designers but I think you're going a little far lining out their incompetence. If you have ever tried to develop a game you will know nobody would ever play it without a certain level of balance.
Now there your apples and bananas comaparison is lacking in two major parts:
1. RPGs are human regulated, managed and supervised, environments. The game master is very much in charge. Rules are secondary. This is how this kind of game was even endurable. A good game master just switches past poorly developed rules.
2. You don't compete with the other characters in an RPG. You don't compete with the other characters in Heros Quest either. You do compete in Warhammer on a fair level and you do compete in Bloodbowl on a fair level. This is why in Warhammer there are Army Points to represent an Armies strength. Battles aren't supposed to end with one side winning by default because it's role play or something. If they were it would be a stupid game. There is nobody there to tell you, sheesh when you do use that weapon it's kinda unfair. The game designer has to do that. And if he is getting paid, he will surely pay attention to these things for a minute or two.
Well ok that was the one thing. The other is how you disregard something else I underlined in my post. Which is that the current 'challenging teams' and that terminology is not from the 80ies but from around the time LRB5 was developed, which was when? Around 2006? With most of the low tier races only added by LRB4 times and undergoing major changes until CRP. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %28, %2016 - %20:%Apr; edited 1 time in total |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 20:22 |
|
Wreckage, you've misinterpreted my point completely. My disdain isn't for the old design at all - it's for modern hyper-competitiveness and that this idea that all things must be rigorously balanced.
I like fluff. I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you. |
_________________
 |
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 22:00 |
|
1. Hero Quest came after WFB, not before.
2. The idea that WFB was ever balanced or fair because there were points is very wrong. And modern day versions of WFB/40k revolve almost entirely around taking the "sheesh, that's unfair" weapon. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2016 - 22:04 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | The idea that WFB was ever balanced or fair because there were points is very wrong. And modern day versions of WFB/40k revolve almost entirely around taking the "sheesh, that's unfair" weapon. |
I think you and I just have very different ideas about what balanced means. |
|
|
Dominik
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 00:27 |
|
| Tricktickler wrote: |
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Nothing wrong with secret weapons but they are very badly implemented at the moment. Being forced to field them at turn 8 and waste all your secret weapons on a meaningless drive sucks. Simple solution to the problem: allow fielding less than 11 players. 3 players should be minimum though so that you cannot avoid the 3 blocks on the LOS. |
Very bad idea. Let receive in half 1 as Goblin, put 3 players on the LOS, dont stand up and have a full roster and all your secret weapons in half 2 when receiving. Congrats, you made it into OT and maybe receive again. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 00:57 |
|
| Dominik wrote: | | Tricktickler wrote: |
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Nothing wrong with secret weapons but they are very badly implemented at the moment. Being forced to field them at turn 8 and waste all your secret weapons on a meaningless drive sucks. Simple solution to the problem: allow fielding less than 11 players. 3 players should be minimum though so that you cannot avoid the 3 blocks on the LOS. |
Very bad idea. Let receive in half 1 as Goblin, put 3 players on the LOS, dont stand up and have a full roster and all your secret weapons in half 2 when receiving. Congrats, you made it into OT and maybe receive again. |
The obvious middle is to not make it mandatory to field only the secret weapons. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 01:00 |
|
Possible further compromise: allow bribes to be used to keep weapons off the pitch when you would otherwise have to field them? |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Tricktickler
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 01:46 |
|
| Dominik wrote: | | Tricktickler wrote: |
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Nothing wrong with secret weapons but they are very badly implemented at the moment. Being forced to field them at turn 8 and waste all your secret weapons on a meaningless drive sucks. Simple solution to the problem: allow fielding less than 11 players. 3 players should be minimum though so that you cannot avoid the 3 blocks on the LOS. |
Very bad idea. Let receive in half 1 as Goblin, put 3 players on the LOS, dont stand up and have a full roster and all your secret weapons in half 2 when receiving. Congrats, you made it into OT and maybe receive again. |
If you don't field your team half 1 - good then I will win that half by 4-0. |
|
|
Dominik
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 01:48 |
|
You mean you score quick so I can break even at half time and win in regular time? |
|
|
Tricktickler
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 02:00 |
|
I happily score quick against goblins, it increases the chance of stopping at least one of their offenses which is required to get a better result than a draw |
|
|
Dominik
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 02:48 |
|
My bad,I consider playing Goblins only in XFL tournaments. |
|
|
DrDiscoStu
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 03:07 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
- Some people are FOR ageing, which is nice to see. I like the reasoning for this point of view. Often people against mechanics like ageing see it from a personal 'my team' point of view rather than a wider picture.
|
That sounds a lot like you like aging, and to disagree means we are look at it from a "my team only" perspective.
Aging is close to the worst thing to ever happen in blood bowl. Fundamentally you should not be penalized for making your players better. You should be penalized for: getting blocked; getting fouled; failing dodges; failing GFI, etc.
Aside from ridiculousness of trying to stall your best players progress, it also separates the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" where it becomes hard to counter that +ST +AG blodge positional on your opponents side because your better players have been forced into retirement.
/endrant |
_________________
Check out my fishing and camping blog.
The Black Pearl Bounty-Board.
GUARD CONQUERS ALL! |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 03:12 |
|
Here are my answers (before I read anyone else's). Tbh, each of these questions individually could justify a forum poll 
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
Personally, I think the randomness is a big part of what makes the game fun, and I think it is currently about right in CRP. One of the advantages of BB over Chess, for example, is that a significant underdog will occasionally win because of luck, which for me adds to the excitement and interest.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
I think the higher TV team should have a small edge. Ideally, inducements should narrow the gap to the point where a noticeable difference in coaching skill or some lucky dice for the underdog could easily lead to an upset. I believe several of the inducements are currently under-priced/over-powered (wiz, Eldril, babes..).
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
All of the above. I would add that one of the main issues I have with it is that it reduces the tactical intrigue of high-TV bash and makes the game too ‘dicey’, i.e. it makes the game too dependent on the dice and tactically more boring. Too many games are essentially 'over' by turn 3.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
I think the overall attrition levels are about right in CRP. It’s easy enough to build a team to high-ish TV, but you’re going to have to do some rebuilding before too long.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
I think it’s much better than the matching methods that BB has used in the past, in terms of a balance between effectiveness and ease/simplicity. Is it ideal? No. But, it ain't a perfect world.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
The idea has merit, but I think it kicks in too early, especially for the elven teams. The fact that, with inducements, you can’t now use a big cash box to gain an in-game advantage, makes stockpiling gold less of an issue anyway. I don’t see it’s inclusion or lack of a critical factor either way.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
I guess this kind of relates to the TV++ discussion and whether teams should be ‘handicapped’ for performing well. In general, I’m not a big fan of the idea of performance handicapping, so I guess for me fan factor should be worth it’s TV.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
In line with my answer to Q2, inducements should narrow the TV gap, but not close it, so I think it’s right that star players should be a bit over-priced. Some need to be adjusted though – Morg is way over-priced; however, Eldril should probably cost more ☺ .
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
Imo, BB should aim for two tiers of rosters: serious/competitive and ‘novelty’. I think the ruleset should strive to make all the competitive teams as well-balanced as is practically possible, to try to promote diversity.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
No. I think this would play into the hands of the agile teams – scoring fast is what they do best, in fact it’s often easier for them than stalling a drive out for 6-7 turns.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Probably not. I’d be open to suggestions on it, but, as with my answer to 10., I don’t see how it could be done without unfairly benefitting the agile/speed teams, who are simply better equipped to score quickly (and always will be).
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
I think I would actually be in favor of some sort of aging, perhaps based on # of games played, rather than SPP. CRP especially, compared to LRB4, has made it somewhat optimal to field a small number of highly-skilled players alongside a load of rookies. An aging system (for the non-undead players, at least) might help limit this min-maxing tendency.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
I think the current balance is pretty good. I very much like the roll you have in Stunty Leeg to see if a secret weapon gets sent off after a drive – would be great to see implemented in the main game.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
I think the wiz is underpriced, should probably be more like 200k, given that it is capable of completely altering the course of the game.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
I like the fact that a large stash of gold can no longer be used to influence the game and essentially ‘buy’ wins/tourneys. If a use could be found that doesn’t directly influence the outcome of games, then it could be worth considering.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
Think they’re good as they are. They add an extra bit of quirkiness to the game that in my opinion makes it more interesting. Bash teams might not like it when elves/skaven roll blitzes, although that’s the price you pay for hiding behind a safety net of AV and CPOMB .. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 29, 2016 - 03:34 |
|
Not helping this stay on topic (sorry Mr J), but these things never do anyway.
| Irgy wrote: | | Look I'm not trying to make factual claims about knowing what they were thinking better than they do. I'm just calling their justification a rationalisation. I can't prove (or disprove) that, because rationalisations are indistinguishable from reasons. Other than that they tend to make very dubious reasons, which this has the hallmarks of. |
I get your point, and I see the rationalisation theory behind your point. I do think that GW have probably done this in the past. Certain BBRC members have certainly done this (rationalised flaws).
Also like you can't prove you are right, we can't prove you are wrong either. Who knows what was going on in JJ's head.
I also think that probably there wasn't that much thought put into balance as you believe. Werewolves for example were just silly good. No way near balanced, and their famous team was supposedly on the weak side.
I think Ogres were certainly never meant to be as weak as they are now. That isn't down to the original designers though. A BBRC thing. They have tried to rationalise the general castration of big guys.
In the case of BloodBowl, the game is a little different to anything else. There is the comedic side and also the little bits of fluff information. There are numerous fluff pieces that deliberately make fun of how bad Halflings and Goblins are.
The Lowdown Rats being the most famous (lowdown because they're lowdown dirty and lowdown in the rankings). However I can think of many more bits of fluff that are deliberately derogatory towards the 2 races. This for me is all about setting up a team that is a semi joke.
So the fact that they made them very jokey; the comedic style of the game; they add colour; JJ has said it was intentional; the deliberate fluff; the deliberate way they made the teams worse than they could have been............for me in a court of law faced with the charge of 'Did you try to rationalise the weak play of some races, due to not being able to make them equal?' JJ would get off with a 'not guilty your honour'.
| Irgy wrote: | | What rational person would start with "Wouldn't it be good if some rosters were weak!", then think "How can I design a roster that sucks?" |
This explains to me, as to why you believe your theory. Simply, they did not look at it like this. It would have been "What would a Halfling team be like if they were on the pitch?" "Could they compete with Orcs?" They then rationalised 'No, they couldn't.' However the game would be a poorer one without Halflings and Goblins; they add colour. BloodBowl was never meant to be half as serious as it is now. Not even the warhammers back in those days. There were no official competitions outside of the store leagues and then later Games Day. These are constraints put on later editions, and one of the reasons why a BBRC/LRB format became necessary. Making a game for the LRBs is a totally different kettle of fish.
However Galak is a BB historian, and worships the original premise. I do believe that as JJ wanted weaker races and rosters not to be balanced, he honestly believed the game should be like this too. I think you could easily balance Goblins and Halflings in all honesty. AG 4 catchers and allowing a little mix raced allies would bring them right up.
| xnoelx wrote: | | 1. Hero Quest came after WFB, not before. |
Yeah HeroQuest was much much later than Warhammer. This came out with other games like Space Crusade as a way to get young and non hobby gamers into the hobby. i.e. MB Games-GW Advanced version-Warhammer/40K. Stepping stones if you like.
Maybe AD was thinking of Talisman? This was earlier, earlier than Warhammer RPG even.
To be honest I'm not sure which came out first Talisman or Warhammer Fantasy Battle. However they'd have been put together around the same time and in conjunction with each other.
Basically, it was a see if either worked....I guess.
GW essentially were a UK RPG publisher and had the rights to D&D. Bryan Ansell was the founder of Citadel and worked at/along/with GW in those days to produce figures for the D&D games among others.
Bryan is a big fan of historical miniature wargames and wanted to try and bring the 2 things together. So as he gained power and Ian Livingstone was phased out, GW looked at a way of utilizing the D&D figure range.
Warhammer and Talisman were the 2 avenues they tried. Warhammer being a historical wargame brought into the fantasy universe. Talisman an RPG system that relied heavily (compared to D&D) on visual markers (namely citadel figures).
So both games were released to promote figure sales. Especially as Citadel also had 2 or 3 ranges of historical figures too (That's why we have the old world map and Norse, Nippon and Bretonnians).
Blood Bowl I guess........was another way to utilize figures. The more use you have for your figures, the more of a bargain they seemed (and in those days they were extremely good value for money). As 1st Edition Blood Bowl was very Warhammery compared the more sophisticated and specialized 2nd ed.
| xnoelx wrote: | | 2. The idea that WFB was ever balanced or fair because there were points is very wrong. And modern day versions of WFB/40k revolve almost entirely around taking the "sheesh, that's unfair" weapon. |
Well there are 2 points there:
Firstly, we know that points isn't a good indicator of force power. Coaching skill and how you spend your points has way too much variation. We can see that with TV.
Secondly, was it ever intended to be (points allocation for Warhammer units?). It's difficult to say.......I doubt GW invented the system, they'd have taken it from a historical source. So you'd have to ask whomever invented the system.
You also have to ask yourself 'how much game and unit testing did they do?' You know.........I doubt they did any. I think even with something like Blood Bowl 3rd edition there was only testing on the game system, not the rosters. I really think that a lot of the later released rosters Norse, Pro Elves, Zons had practically no testing, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't have any at all before being published. Lizardmen I think the opposite, I think they were well tested and Vampire. The old demon rosters........seriously they had testing? I doubt that.
Anyway......back on off topic. Early Warhammer wasn't like it is today (oh I mean yesterday as it doesn't exist anymore). Basically, you were good or evil and then put your models into groups and had at it. Citadel didn't have the range yet for specialized army lists, and fluff was still very much RPGish (use your imagination) Rather than the more fixed TT game (this is the exact fluff). 2nd Edition had definitive point lists. Armies early on were still mixed, but later there were definitive point lists for different races and had released regiments of renown.
So I think at this period there were armies but as they were released well after the core rules, definitely not balanced and if they were meant to be, it was a tack on.
By 3rd ed though, things changed. Definitive army lists and points. The point lists for the Regiments of Renown were not official (suggesting they were not balanced, as the boxes were still available with the stats on the back). Now there wasn't a tournament scene to test the system on whether it was fair or balanced, so GW didn't have to qualify the points system. It certainly did feel like they intended 3rd ed (and later 2nd ed to a certain extent) as being balanced, as there were so many intricate rules. This period though really suffered from rules creep, and like any other form of rules creep newly released stuff tended to be a bit better and a must have.
Mental footnote. When staff posted recommended or demonstration lists they often went over points. 3000 points was the norm for 3rd (which took forever) and lists were very often 3003 or 3001.5. This suggests to me 'Don't take it too seriously' or 'It's a guide' approach. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes FTW! (Replays...
Search
