34 coaches online • Server time: 14:07
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Best 1980s cult film?
Goonies
27%
 27%  [ 15 ]
Big Trouble in Little China
30%
 30%  [ 17 ]
The Burbs
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Videodrome
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
An American Werewolf in London
9%
 9%  [ 5 ]
They Live
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Escape from New York
20%
 20%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 55


koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 23:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
MattDakka wrote:

Not a fan of Piling On 2016 either, because games would again more based on winning the coin toss and removing players by using PO, more on dice, less on positioning.


Not really. The new piling on is only usable at the cost of a re-roll. So it wouldn't be a return to crp 1st turn stupidity. In fact I don't think it would really be that heavily used. Maybe one in a team for hurting key players.

Though let me be clear I'm not saying fumbbl should use 2016 piling on. But if huge tv teams do start causing grief it may be worth considering as I see nothing else in this rule set that could help.


If you don't see many people using it, how do you think it is going to help?

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 23:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Because it would be reserved for 1 off important uses - targeting the opposition's best players Legend gutter runners, wardancers etc...
Which would likely help keep teams tv down a little.

_________________
Image
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 01:13 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
MattDakka wrote:

Not a fan of Piling On 2016 either, because games would again more based on winning the coin toss and removing players by using PO, more on dice, less on positioning.


Not really. The new piling on is only usable at the cost of a re-roll. So it wouldn't be a return to crp 1st turn stupidity. In fact I don't think it would really be that heavily used. Maybe one in a team for hurting key players.

Though let me be clear I'm not saying fumbbl should use 2016 piling on. But if huge tv teams do start causing grief it may be worth considering as I see nothing else in this rule set that could help.


Alternatively, coaches could utilize the tools already present with Dirty Player and fouling for the same purpose. Most are loathe to do it but with the small change of Argue the Call it's slightly better than previous. And if you are giving a coach 500+ in inducements many have a star player available that either reduces armor via saw or has dirty player.

Turkey III would tell you all about that but Borak made him eternally silent with one assist. Wink
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 08:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Yup that's 1 tool. But on the whole attrition is the lowest it's ever been. So more ways to do damage would help with player turn over.

Regarding argue the call - it's stupid that the player is still put off the pitch. You changed the refs mind, the player should stay on the pitch with no turn over like it used to work. But that's a whole other thing.

_________________
Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 11:27 Reply with quote Back to top

You guys seem to be calling for more attrition. Well, here's the thing. People generally don't like attrition. Sure, you need a bit of attrition because "it's blood bowl". But people don't like a lot. (Not if it is going to happen to them Twisted Evil)

It sounds great for people to say "I want my player to die on the field". Until the player actually dies. Wink
Now if a player has played 50 or 100+ games you can say "they had a good innings" and you can take it. But good (or potentially good) players dying "early" just pisses people off.

Stronger fouling? LRB4 Box was a disaster. It just plain died. CPOMB was better. At least it took longer to get so didn't kick in so early.
LRB4 ageing was horrible for the same reason. A chance to age on the 4th,5th or 6th skill is fair enough. But 1st or 2nd...

VoodooMike was right all along. Wink
That doesn't mean we have to follow his "no attrition" model, but attrition is at it's lowest for a reason.

More on field attrition also encourages a less strategic "bash & hope" style of play.

So, yeah. I'm inclined to towards caps + a little something to boost battered teams.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 13:32 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
You guys seem to be calling for more attrition. Well, here's the thing. People generally don't like attrition. Sure, you need a bit of attrition because "it's blood bowl". But people don't like a lot. (Not if it is going to happen to them Twisted Evil)

It sounds great for people to say "I want my player to die on the field". Until the player actually dies. Wink
Now if a player has played 50 or 100+ games you can say "they had a good innings" and you can take it. But good (or potentially good) players dying "early" just pisses people off.

Stronger fouling? LRB4 Box was a disaster. It just plain died. CPOMB was better. At least it took longer to get so didn't kick in so early.
LRB4 ageing was horrible for the same reason. A chance to age on the 4th,5th or 6th skill is fair enough. But 1st or 2nd...

VoodooMike was right all along. Wink
That doesn't mean we have to follow his "no attrition" model, but attrition is at it's lowest for a reason.

More on field attrition also encourages a less strategic "bash & hope" style of play.

So, yeah. I'm inclined to towards caps + a little something to boost battered teams.


For sure there were problems with lrb4 and crp, no one is disputing that.

objectively - LRB4 had really powerful fouling and ageing to keep TR (for those that don't know this is what TV used to be called). though we still got some ridiculously big teams after a few years.
And CRP had CPOMB to keep TV in check which sort of worked but it was a far to specific a thing that forced attrition and it also made games very dicey. I don't think anyone wants that extreme back.

But I think there is a happy medium where games are not won and lost because dicey cas, but attrition does exist to a slightly higher level than we have now to stop teams ever increasing to ridiculous TVs.

I'm not sure this has happened yet, but there is a chance we might start seeing 4000 tv teams and I certainly wouldn't want to face them with a 1800 tv team for example.

Again I'm not sure the very high tv teams are an issue yet, but its something that definitely needs to be watched, and I certainly don't want the game become too soft, which it may have edged into in this edition (but again this is still very much open to debate at this point),

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 14:13 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:

Not really. The new piling on is only usable at the cost of a re-roll. So it wouldn't be a return to crp 1st turn stupidity. In fact I don't think it would really be that heavily used. Maybe one in a team for hurting key players.

I know that new Piling On requires a rr (this is why I wrote Piling On 2016).
I think that, if PO were allowed again, clawpomb teams would play with lot of rrs (maybe even 8 ) and would use Piling On quite often, although less often than in CRP. I already see coaches rerolling not important clawmb blocks, so the same people probably would use PO mindlessly whenever possible.
The problem of on-pitch attrition is that losing 3-4 players at start or middle of the game may make the rest of the match pointless to play (the TV lost is not considered and you can't replace players before a drive or half ends).
The off-pitch attrition has the advantage of removing players BEFORE a match starts, and this way the TV is affected for matching and inducements purpose.
If you lose 3-4 players at start of the match you are basically playing a huge mismatch from turn 1 or early turns, if you lose players before a match due to Ageing and the on-pitch is not terrible you should still have a nice game experience.
This is what I don't like of on-pitch attrition, although I really don't care about my pixels, as long as I have a decent chance of playing the rest of the match (losing can be fun too, but you should be able to move some players, try some actions etc.).
Maybe a better solution might be deciding the max TV cap of a team (2500, 3000? The Commissioner should decide it) and, when a team reaches that TV you have to lower it by retiring players of your choice. The hard TV cap system ensures no team will be above a certain TV and on the other hand allows a degree of freedom about the retired players, no dice randomness.
fidius



Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 16:42 Reply with quote Back to top

The key feature of PO 2016 is that because you have to use a RR you can only do it 1x/turn.

Attrition is dicey, yes. But it's called Blood Bowl, attrition has to be a major tactic. The problems imo were: easy to get (3 skills), available to S&M(!) teams only, stupid high variance (55%, ie. way too powerful, which is what bugs Dakka), and THERE WAS NO SACRIFICE.

In my mind if you're going to develop for aggression you should give up defense. Apart from not picking awesome defensive skills like Fend or Stand Firm when you select CPOMB, what's the downside? PO was meant to have this feature but actually turned out the opposite -- "hiding on the ground" was the thing to do. Block is offensive AND defensive. For that matter Dodge is also both, as are Tackle, and Guard. No tough decisions necessary -- pick the best skills and you get it all.
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 17:30 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
But is having huge TV teams actually a problem. I know the games designed wanted teams to play in a certain TV range. But does having teams above 2500 for long periods of time actually cause any problems?

If the purpose is to improve the game then the only relevant thing to look at is whether it causes any problems. Whether it breaks a design goal is irrelevant since those are most probably just something that someone made up arbitrarily in the first place without any proof that they are actually improving gameplay.


Last edited by Tricktickler on Jul 28, 2018 - 17:35; edited 1 time in total
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 17:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Tricktickler wrote:

Would you be able to find a solution for it if you could rewrite the rules? It's quite hard to find a good solution. Aging was a decent attempt imo but was disliked. Clawpomb was another attempt but failed miserably.


CRP had the correct idea, keeping teams in a specific TV range as a result of attrition. The problem was that CPOMB added far too much luck to games. Having a roll with a 55% ish chance of removing an opposing player made games too dicey and not fun.

However the levels of attrition them selves seemed about right, it just needed spreading out, rather than coming from one very specific place. A little buff back to fouling, a little buff back to crowd surfing and nerf to the kill stack. That way you have a more fair and even form of attrition. SE or EM are both fine for what they do, though I found teams could still accumulate huge sums of money under SE, so EM albeit tweaked seems to be more successful.

I'm not sure increasing attrition is a good idea even if you spread it out since increased attrition in general makes the game more random. The more attrition the more like stunty division. Maybe attrition can be increased a bit, but can it be increased the amount required to solve the problem without adding to much randomness? Maybe it can. Just putting this forward as a possible problem. The advantage of aging was that it circumvented this problem.

Another problem is the disparity between av7 and av9 teams when it comes to trying to build a high TV team. It's very hard for Norse, and other low armor teams that cannot dodge out of contact, to build a team that is big enough to have a chance in majors and in high TV leagues. You could definitely argue that Norse and other av7 teams deserve this weakness since that is part of being av7 but what aging aimed to do was to reduce this disparity by increasing the number of perms in all teams equally regardless of their armor. The new version of Claw also aims to do this since it affects high armor teams more than low armor teams. (Claw does this is at the expense of good gameplay though since it makes the game more like rock, scissor, paper where one type of team always wins against another). Your idea of just increasing in-game attrition however does nothing to decrease the disparity between av7 and av9 when it comes to how hard it is for them to reach high TV. Maybe this disparity is already low enough as it is thanks to how Claw works now, in this case there is no problem, but if the disparity needs to be reduced further then your solution does nothing to help. Also if Claw was to be changed into something more reasonable (like +1 to armor roll against all teams for example) a mechanism for reducing the disparity is needed in place of Claw.

Also you mentioned making fouling better. But I think fouling is pretty balanced as it is right now, especially now when you can argue the call at +6. Really liked that change in bb2016.

One idea that could be used is to simply increase the amount of SPPs that is required to reach level, 4, 5 and 6. That way many players will die before they ever reach high levels which would keep the TV down. This could be combined with other ideas like increased attrition and so on.

edit: attempt to correct bad grammar


Last edited by Tricktickler on Jul 28, 2018 - 20:58; edited 2 times in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 17:50 Reply with quote Back to top

fidius wrote:

Attrition is dicey, yes. But it's called Blood Bowl, attrition has to be a major tactic.

Attrition through amount of blocks is one thing and it may require some tactic, but attrition through 1 clawpomb blitz per turn doesn't require major tactic.
And yes it's called Blood Bowl, not Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Some casualties are ok, too many casualties and a game turns into a waste of time.
Tricktickler wrote:

One idea that could be used is to simply increase the amount of SPPs that is required to reach level, 4, 5 and 6. That way many players will die before they ever reach high levels. This could be combined with other ideas like increased attrition and so on.

I thought as well to increse the SPPs required to level up during cpomb era:

https://fumbbl.com/p/blog&c=MattDakka&id=11086

a possible drawback might be people mostly playing teams strong at low TV such as Norse, Amazons, Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs (generally because they start with many core skills).
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 18:11 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
You guys seem to be calling for more attrition. Well, here's the thing. People generally don't like attrition. Sure, you need a bit of attrition because "it's blood bowl". But people don't like a lot. (Not if it is going to happen to them Twisted Evil)

It sounds great for people to say "I want my player to die on the field". Until the player actually dies. Wink
Now if a player has played 50 or 100+ games you can say "they had a good innings" and you can take it. But good (or potentially good) players dying "early" just pisses people off.

If you are trying to build a good system you don't base it on people's temporary emotions after one of their players have died.

It's a bit like: "Let's forbid people from playing chess because if someone loses he might be sad! And we don't want to make people sad, right?". Well the problem is that chess is fun despite the fact it can make a person sad if he loses. Similarly the fact that players can die in bb is a needed component to make the game fun despite it can upset people now and then when their players die. If players couldn't die in bb the game would be worse for everyone. So people just have to accept that their players can die.

Quote:
VoodooMike was right all along. Wink
That doesn't mean we have to follow his "no attrition" model, but attrition is at it's lowest for a reason.

Lol. Almost all legends and good coaches had concerns and complaints about clawpomb and his interpretation of the situation was that all these great coaches, with years of experience in the game, just wasn't able to accept the fact that their players could die. Yeah, right, that is really a plausible interpretation. Of course the better explanation is simply that something was really bad with clawpomb which caused most good coaches to have concerns about it.

The reason attrition is so low now is mostly because they didn't replace it with something else. Who knows why they didn't do it. Maybe they had the same faulty interpretion.

Quote:
So, yeah. I'm inclined to towards caps + a little something to boost battered teams.

But how could a cap be better than players dying? Isn't the only reason people are upset when their players die because it means a backlash in development? And isn't a fullstop limit worse than a backlash? Isn't a 100% slow down of team development thanks to a cap worse than a 50% slow down thanks to deaths?

The only reason to have a cap is if you don't like unequal match-ups in terms of TV. But if that is the case then using a cap is a very bad idea:

You either make all match-ups equal in terms of TV at the expense of teambuilding (non-progression), or you make teambuilding meaningful and accept that some match-ups will be unequal (progression). Both of these formats are fine and have their own merits. But trying to combine both of them into the same format is the worst possible idea I can think of. Why accept TV disparities at low TV but not at high TV? Unless of course the high TV team faces a low TV team in which case you suddenly accept TV disparities again? Someone either dislikes TV disparites and teambuilding in which case it's best if all games are equal, or someone likes teambuilding and accept TV disparities in which case its best if no cap exists which would prevent him from building up his team.

A non-progression type of division could definitely be built: Both coaches are given the same amount of TV to buy their teams for (let's say a random number between 1000 and 2500 TV with a much higher probability of getting a low number since that's where most games are played) and then they buy their team before the game and builds it however they want. Stacking skills could be a little bit more expensive and so on. If you don't like teambuilding and TV disparities this is one way you can do it to ensure that all matchups have equal TV.


Last edited by Tricktickler on Jul 28, 2018 - 23:33; edited 3 times in total
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 18:31 Reply with quote Back to top

Tricktickler wrote:

I'm not sure increasing attrition is a good idea even if you spread it out since increased attrition in general makes the game more random. The more attrition the more like stunty division. Maybe attrition can be increased a bit, but can it be increased the amount required to solve the problem without adding to much randomness? Maybe it can. Just putting this forward as a possible problem. The advantage of aging was that it circumvented this problem.


I think it can be increased without increasing randomness tbh. Remember LRB4 had more attrition on the pitch than we have now. And it had a brtual form ageing on top of that. I agree you don't want on pitch attrition to be too high though, and you especially do not want any skill combo comparable to CPOMB as it makes things too dicey. But there are plenty of elegant solutions.

e.g. you mention argue the call. This is an old rule but they have brought it back in a poor way. The player should remain on the pitch (like they used to) if the argue was successful. It makes no sense how it currently is. if they had reverted it back to its original form which is far superior, it gives your dirty player a chance of fouling again as they are still on the pitch. Which would help increase the chances of more damage being done a small amount.
Similarly changing crowd surf rules so that no apothecary can be used when the crowd cause a casualty to one of your players would help increase attrition a small amount, in a way that increases tactical/positioning awareness and cause a more damage at the same time. without increasing luck. Because either way the player's out for this drive anyway.

Tricktickler wrote:
Another problem is the disparity between av7 and av9 teams when it comes to trying to build a high TV team. It's very hard for Norse, and other low armor teams that cannot dodge out of contact, to build a team that is big enough to have a chance in majors and in high TV leagues.


This ^ is something of a non issue to me, as they can all compete pretty well up to about 1800 ish. I'm fine with different teams having different strengths and weaknesses at different TVs. There will always be hierarchies, and teams are not meant to be perfectly balanced at all TVs. It adds different challenges to the game that keep people coming back. If you want a hard low TV team use chaos. If you want an easy low tv use norse, at high TV it switches, this is fine. Though if typically good high TV teams start reaching TVS of 3000 and Norse etc.. can't compete at all then we start having a problem. I'm fine with some teams being better at high TV, but when it gets impossible then we have an issue, which could be one of the issues caused by no rule to peg teams TV back. Though I don't think this has become an issue yet, so as I said we need to keep an eye on it.


Tricktickler wrote:
The new version of Claw also aims to do this since it affects high armor teams more than low armor teams. Claw does this is at the expense of good gameplay though since it makes the game more like rock, scissor, paper where one type of team always wins against another.


I don't fully agree here. sure claw teams have an advantage in some match ups but its not a forgone conclusion. In CRP i think you would be more on the ball with this statement though, as CPOMB ruined teams like Orc and Dwarf at high TV. Now CRP piling on is gone the threat is severely reduced.

Tricktickler wrote:
Your idea of just increasing in-game attrition however does nothing to decrease this disparity. Maybe the disparity is already low enough as it is thanks to Claw, in that case there is no problem, but if it needs to be reduced further then your solution does nothing to help.


I think you are assuming increased attrition would only help Claw teams more than anyone else. However the two small buffs i mention above, especially the crowd surfing one are pretty egalitarian if that's the right word.

Tricktickler wrote:
Also for those who think thinks Claw needs to change into something more reasonable (like +1 to armor roll against all teams for example) a mechanism for reducing the disparity is needed in place of Claw.
I'd be very surprised if anyone has an issue with Claw as it is now. in isolation its fine, with MB its pretty powerful. But not game breaking. in the LRB's and CRP the kill stack was way way more powerful. and the LRBs had ageing on top of the kill stack.

Again i'm not talking about increasing the kill stack a lot, just some little fair tweaks here and there would be preferable for me. But this discussion now is entering into house ruling which will never happen here.


So in terms of options in the actual rules there is only adjusting EM so it starts a little later, and if huge TV teams become a problem the only options are to have re-draft/seasons (which sounds horrible to an open division) or allow the RR pile on, which i suspect would be used sparingly.

_________________
Image
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 20:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Similarly changing crowd surf rules so that no apothecary can be used when the crowd cause a casualty to one of your players would help increase attrition a small amount, in a way that increases tactical/positioning awareness and cause a more damage at the same time. without increasing luck. Because either way the player's out for this drive anyway.

Disallowing apos on crowdpushes could cause people to be so afraid of being crowdpushed that they sacrifice defense just to avoid being crowdpushed. Not sure I like that. In general I prefer when you have to make as few choices as possible between: "Should I focus on winning or saving my team?"


Last edited by Tricktickler on Jul 28, 2018 - 23:08; edited 1 time in total
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 28, 2018 - 21:05 Reply with quote Back to top

No chance would people sacrifice defence for saving their team for surfing. We had this rule for years (around 9 iirc) and it did nothing of the sort. But did cause a few more cas

_________________
Image
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