62 coaches online • Server time: 17:45
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  SWL Season 100! | Gnome Roster - how a... | Problem to organize ... |
2012-12-29 10:07:20
23 votes, rating 3.2
23 votes, rating 3.2
Overpriced positionals
So you've played against 11 Amazon Linewomen, 10 Mauraders and a D'elf and Necro's with no Flesh Golems (I could go on). I think most coaches feel it is a bit of a shame when teams have less variety but the current rule set does reward this kind of approach in TV matched leagues like Black Box.
Whilst I appreciate Christer is reluctant to run an alternative rule set (with good reasons) I wanted to offer up some thoughts on refined rosters which I believe would largely remove this issue.
The principle is simple; the pricing of players in every team should encourage the use of positionals (including big guys) rather than penalise them.
Amazon:
Linewoman 60K
Thrower/Catcher 70K
Blitzer 80K
With the above roster 11 Linewomen would be more accurately rated and there would be no incentive to run without positionals. The overall costs of the team would normally be just slightly higher (as normally there would be more Linewomen tha Blitzers).
Chaos Pact:
Marauders 50K GPM (SA on doubles)
All Big Guys costs reduced by 10K
With strength skills on a double for Marauders, clawpomb would become less readily available. Combined with the reduced cost of Big Guys teh full roster team becomes more attractive.
Necro:
Reduce cost of Flesh Golem by 10K.
I won't list them all here in detail but suggest Dwarf Deathrollers, D'elf Assassins and Human Blitzers are all good candidates for a cost decrease.
Whilst we're here, the cost of stat increases are often too high too, as is (to a lesser extent) the cost of skills on a double. Again variety is being reduced because coaches under the current ruleset are often rewarded for just taking a normal skill instead. I would propose:
ST 40K
AG 30K
MA / AV 20K
Double 20K
Normal skill 20K
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Whilst I appreciate Christer is reluctant to run an alternative rule set (with good reasons) I wanted to offer up some thoughts on refined rosters which I believe would largely remove this issue.
The principle is simple; the pricing of players in every team should encourage the use of positionals (including big guys) rather than penalise them.
Amazon:
Linewoman 60K
Thrower/Catcher 70K
Blitzer 80K
With the above roster 11 Linewomen would be more accurately rated and there would be no incentive to run without positionals. The overall costs of the team would normally be just slightly higher (as normally there would be more Linewomen tha Blitzers).
Chaos Pact:
Marauders 50K GPM (SA on doubles)
All Big Guys costs reduced by 10K
With strength skills on a double for Marauders, clawpomb would become less readily available. Combined with the reduced cost of Big Guys teh full roster team becomes more attractive.
Necro:
Reduce cost of Flesh Golem by 10K.
I won't list them all here in detail but suggest Dwarf Deathrollers, D'elf Assassins and Human Blitzers are all good candidates for a cost decrease.
Whilst we're here, the cost of stat increases are often too high too, as is (to a lesser extent) the cost of skills on a double. Again variety is being reduced because coaches under the current ruleset are often rewarded for just taking a normal skill instead. I would propose:
ST 40K
AG 30K
MA / AV 20K
Double 20K
Normal skill 20K
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Comments
Posted by zakatan on 2012-12-29 10:35:47
I'm all in for whatever solution that make doubles a viable choice and encourage build diversity.
Posted by Verminardo on 2012-12-29 11:33:14
While I share the view that it would be desirable to see rosters with more positionals (and also, more of a bench) on Fumbbl in general and in Blackbox in particular, I am not so sure about your suggested fix. Odds are that by stuffing one loop hole you would create three others.
Besides, even at 70k Assassins would still suck. ;-)
Besides, even at 70k Assassins would still suck. ;-)
Posted by koadah on 2012-12-29 11:41:00
This sounds to me like a fix to low TV that screws higher TV. i.e. creates more monstrosities.
Better IMO to alter the cost of CPOMB and/or weaken it.
Those cost changes may help a little on some players but for most you are probably still going to be better off going for bread & butter skills. Unless you want to make block/dodge/wrestle/MB/PO/Claw 30K
How much of an issue is this over 1500?
How about leave the costs alone and push teams out of the rookie zone based on games played.
eg. > 20 games treat TV as min 1300 for matching.
> 30 games min 1400
> 40 min 1500.
Better IMO to alter the cost of CPOMB and/or weaken it.
Those cost changes may help a little on some players but for most you are probably still going to be better off going for bread & butter skills. Unless you want to make block/dodge/wrestle/MB/PO/Claw 30K
How much of an issue is this over 1500?
How about leave the costs alone and push teams out of the rookie zone based on games played.
eg. > 20 games treat TV as min 1300 for matching.
> 30 games min 1400
> 40 min 1500.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-12-29 11:47:56
I echo zakatan.
I agree with the Golem price change, and Chaos Pact. These were both pointed out to be mistakes before the rosters were finalised. Pact was on the whole an attempt to mimic 2nd ed Chaos Allstars, which had massive diversity. On the whole they did this, but left gaping holes that could be exploited, a great shame.
However Zons are more complex, what about at high TV? This would hurt them even more.
We could disallow 'boring' builds and suggest coaches build teams with positional diversity. However then it would outlaw interesting theme builds like the Darkbones for example.
Very difficult. I (unlike many) believe coaches should behave responsibly and it's up to them to police themselves. So anyone doing this sort of thing, I have absolutely no respect for, and a couple of well established coaches who had great reputations have really lost that (reputation) in my book.
I agree with the Golem price change, and Chaos Pact. These were both pointed out to be mistakes before the rosters were finalised. Pact was on the whole an attempt to mimic 2nd ed Chaos Allstars, which had massive diversity. On the whole they did this, but left gaping holes that could be exploited, a great shame.
However Zons are more complex, what about at high TV? This would hurt them even more.
We could disallow 'boring' builds and suggest coaches build teams with positional diversity. However then it would outlaw interesting theme builds like the Darkbones for example.
Very difficult. I (unlike many) believe coaches should behave responsibly and it's up to them to police themselves. So anyone doing this sort of thing, I have absolutely no respect for, and a couple of well established coaches who had great reputations have really lost that (reputation) in my book.
Posted by Garion on 2012-12-29 12:11:02
right idea on most, but zons just need a complete overhaul. Nothing can stop them being uber lame cheese team while they continue to spam dodge on everyone.
Posted by koadah on 2012-12-29 12:36:08
Lame early on unless you have dwarves or CDs. But more manageable later on when you have a couple of tackle POMBers.
Also useful for dealing with skinks, ghouls, assorted elves and the occasional blodge CW. :)
Also useful for dealing with skinks, ghouls, assorted elves and the occasional blodge CW. :)
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2012-12-29 13:26:03
I love chaoszwerg2001's amazon team. :D
vs Chaos 22/2/2 !!!!!
vs Chaos 22/2/2 !!!!!
Posted by spubbbba on 2012-12-29 13:26:41
The Golem price change was tested but it had a huge effect on the win percentage, going from one of the worst tier 1 teams around the mid 40's up to the highest at over 60%. So it was changed back.
Of course the fact that there was a rather pitiful number of test games and the stats didn't take into account the respective TV values, teams faced or quality of coaching has no bearing on the massive change.
Of course the fact that there was a rather pitiful number of test games and the stats didn't take into account the respective TV values, teams faced or quality of coaching has no bearing on the massive change.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-12-29 13:30:11
Yeah, they're sitting in their own little bubble, surrounded by sharks that can't burst it. Surprised he doesn't use a second catcher. Norse (lrb 4) & Zon catchers were always my favourite positional.
Zons can play at high TV, they most certainly aren't as bad as people think. However they aren't good up there, average at best.
Zons can play at high TV, they most certainly aren't as bad as people think. However they aren't good up there, average at best.
Posted by the_Sage on 2012-12-29 13:45:12
Wow, there's no mention of slann blitzers here?
Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-12-29 13:53:39
Are Slann a classic min-max roster? I
Posted by Endzone on 2012-12-29 14:26:21
...and of course Slann Blitzers!
Posted by neoliminal on 2012-12-29 15:29:34
You can tweak Blood Bowl endlessly but you will never know the effects until they ripple through 1000 games against different races and coaches. That was the beauty of the BBRC, it reviewed the problems that rules changes made.
At this point tweaking by any one person is dangerous because it comes from a limited viewpoint (one person). At some point you have to accept that some teams are better than others (and that was by design from Jervis) and that people who can't take losing will play the better teams. Nuff said.
At this point tweaking by any one person is dangerous because it comes from a limited viewpoint (one person). At some point you have to accept that some teams are better than others (and that was by design from Jervis) and that people who can't take losing will play the better teams. Nuff said.
Posted by pythrr on 2012-12-29 15:53:09
"hat was the beauty of the BBRC, it reviewed the problems that rules changes made."
Glad to see that worked out so damn well.....
Glad to see that worked out so damn well.....
Posted by the_cursed_one on 2012-12-29 15:59:22
course it worked pythrr, the plan was too have cpomb kill all menz and rats to become even better with cpomb and OTTD
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2012-12-29 17:00:26
BBRC was cool, BB needs a living rulebook.
Posted by neoliminal on 2012-12-29 17:36:56
pythrr - Did you ever play before the BBRC?
Posted by bghandras on 2012-12-29 17:48:36
I absolutely agree that zons roster needs tweak. I also agree that the positionals should not be penelised. Furthermore i am pretty sure that ogres are overpriced. (All snotling teams proved that inducement is usually better value for money, than ogres, which in my mind is equal to overpriced ogres.)
I am not sure about your suggested solutions though. In case of amazons i would simply increase the cost of lino to 60, add all amazon players access to agility. To avoid the catcher look lame (formerly the only one having access to agility skills) she could get an additional skill, and be priced accordingly. One solution is giving them diving catch and no change in price.
In case of ogres the price could go down 10k in price without a problem. My feeling is that -20k could also work.
I am not sure about your suggested solutions though. In case of amazons i would simply increase the cost of lino to 60, add all amazon players access to agility. To avoid the catcher look lame (formerly the only one having access to agility skills) she could get an additional skill, and be priced accordingly. One solution is giving them diving catch and no change in price.
In case of ogres the price could go down 10k in price without a problem. My feeling is that -20k could also work.
Posted by neoliminal on 2012-12-29 19:17:00
Something to chew on from about 10 years ago.
http://www.midgardbb.com/Tactics/BuildingNewPlayerGuide.html
http://www.midgardbb.com/Tactics/BuildingNewPlayerGuide.html
Posted by Nelphine on 2012-12-29 20:14:20
Endzone, what you may be looking for is actually price costs associated with skill access. You can actually fix almost all the problems you mentioned (EXCEPT amazons) by simply only giving 10 players on a team a second skill access for free (not allowed to be given to S5 players), giving general players G access to start, agility 4 players and stunty players A access to start, and S4 (or higher) players S access to start. You then charge 10k for any player who wants to buy G, A or S, 5k for anyone wants to have M or P access.
And you charge teams 50k to have access to mutations at all, although that can be split into 5, 10 or 20k increments as determined by the needs of balancing the team and it's players.
Again, the amazon roster mostly defeats this idea.
And you charge teams 50k to have access to mutations at all, although that can be split into 5, 10 or 20k increments as determined by the needs of balancing the team and it's players.
Again, the amazon roster mostly defeats this idea.
Posted by Wreckage on 2012-12-30 11:59:07
I never understood why people think they have to press their play stile preferences on everyone. I have used the no golem build for many years and always loved it.
There were lots of pure linemen teams in the old times and they used to be quite competative. Especially because you used to get the first skill relatively cheap.
Looking at it long term, the current ruleset still favors positionals because you get additional skills and stats for a lower price and can skill them up faster.
If anything pushing people to always use all positionals would reduce diversity since everyone would have to use the same build. Isn't the ability to choose between different positionals the ones you like the very essence of diversity?
Isn't it more that the transparency of skill access has changed that makes you realise that it might be a good idea to have linemen?
There were lots of pure linemen teams in the old times and they used to be quite competative. Especially because you used to get the first skill relatively cheap.
Looking at it long term, the current ruleset still favors positionals because you get additional skills and stats for a lower price and can skill them up faster.
If anything pushing people to always use all positionals would reduce diversity since everyone would have to use the same build. Isn't the ability to choose between different positionals the ones you like the very essence of diversity?
Isn't it more that the transparency of skill access has changed that makes you realise that it might be a good idea to have linemen?
Posted by bghandras on 2012-12-30 21:55:24
In case of zons the pricing supports to use linos instead of catcher and thrower, and even replace 2 blitzers after linos acquired block or wrestle.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2012-12-31 05:41:49
I don't see your suggestion as the solution. An Amazon linewomen cost 50 k. The Amazom Blitzers are definitely over priced, from a rookie squad perspective. The advantage they do get, is to choose skills from Strength, where a Linewoman cannot.
Scenario 1
1 Linewomen with dodge, block, Mightyblow 50+20+30 =100k (with 16 ssp/ 1 Normal skill and 1 double)
1 Blitzer with dodge, block, MB 90+20 =110k (with 6ssp/1 normal skill)
With that Math, perhaps a Linewoman should be 10k higher. How about with a 3rd skill on a Linewoman?
Scenario 2
1 Linewomen with dodge, block, Mightyblow, Piling On 50+20+30+30 =130k (with 31 ssp/ 1 normal skill and 2 double rolls)
1 Blitzer with dodge, block, MB, Piling On 90+20=20=130k (with 16 ssp/ and 2 normal skills)
With an added skill the odds are extremely low that you would be able to roll 2 doubles on 4 Linewomen to be equivalent to 4 Blitzers at 16 ssp. For me the cost of the positional are quite sufficient. I don't see a reason for change. You talk about diversity, yet complain about guys not using positionals. I think that is quite different. Im used to people buying positionals, because they have better access to skills. Its the reason I take a Thrower on most teams. They can pick a Pass skill. If I roll a double on another Lineman or positional, I doubt Im taking Pass as the double roll skill.
What the real argument is that you don't like the advantage of coaches Min/Maxing. They get more wins vs your more expensive and lets face it underdeveloped teams. A solution is to include money back into the TR. Most min maxing teams have a large bank account. Make them dispose of the bank to Min/Max their team. That way when you kill one of their Linewomen with 2 double rolls, they cant afford a new player as a replacement Linewoman. Plus it takes them several games to reach 32, and they have to be lucky enough to roll 2 doubles to equal a Blitzer. Is this as Clear as mud?
Scenario 1
1 Linewomen with dodge, block, Mightyblow 50+20+30 =100k (with 16 ssp/ 1 Normal skill and 1 double)
1 Blitzer with dodge, block, MB 90+20 =110k (with 6ssp/1 normal skill)
With that Math, perhaps a Linewoman should be 10k higher. How about with a 3rd skill on a Linewoman?
Scenario 2
1 Linewomen with dodge, block, Mightyblow, Piling On 50+20+30+30 =130k (with 31 ssp/ 1 normal skill and 2 double rolls)
1 Blitzer with dodge, block, MB, Piling On 90+20=20=130k (with 16 ssp/ and 2 normal skills)
With an added skill the odds are extremely low that you would be able to roll 2 doubles on 4 Linewomen to be equivalent to 4 Blitzers at 16 ssp. For me the cost of the positional are quite sufficient. I don't see a reason for change. You talk about diversity, yet complain about guys not using positionals. I think that is quite different. Im used to people buying positionals, because they have better access to skills. Its the reason I take a Thrower on most teams. They can pick a Pass skill. If I roll a double on another Lineman or positional, I doubt Im taking Pass as the double roll skill.
What the real argument is that you don't like the advantage of coaches Min/Maxing. They get more wins vs your more expensive and lets face it underdeveloped teams. A solution is to include money back into the TR. Most min maxing teams have a large bank account. Make them dispose of the bank to Min/Max their team. That way when you kill one of their Linewomen with 2 double rolls, they cant afford a new player as a replacement Linewoman. Plus it takes them several games to reach 32, and they have to be lucky enough to roll 2 doubles to equal a Blitzer. Is this as Clear as mud?
Posted by Endzone on 2012-12-31 11:03:25
I don't think counting money in the bank in TV matching is a good idea. Coaches who wanted to keep their TV low would just spend their cash on inducements.
Personally I am not against low TV management (after all being routinely ripped up by clawpomb at the higher ratings isn't much fun) but if the majority of coaches feel that extreme min-maxing is not in the spirit of the game then roster tweaks could help.
Personally I am not against low TV management (after all being routinely ripped up by clawpomb at the higher ratings isn't much fun) but if the majority of coaches feel that extreme min-maxing is not in the spirit of the game then roster tweaks could help.
Posted by bghandras on 2012-12-31 11:06:05
I would keep amazon blitzers with Mighty blow and Piling on, and have a couple of amazon linos, probably with 1-2 subs since they are dirt cheap. This is clearly minmaxing. You can either say i am crap doing so, or listen that it is only viable since the linos are 50k, and too-too cheap.