45 coaches online • Server time: 23:59
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Old style skill prog...goto Post Get your League bann...goto Post data on the most use...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
xnoelx



Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 15:15 Reply with quote Back to top

My suggestion: LRB7 = 3rd ed & Death Zone. So many cards. Everything is fixed. Happiness abounds.

_________________
Image Nerf Ball 2014
Roland



Joined: May 12, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 15:20 Reply with quote Back to top

I like the "Right Stuff prevents the Tackle skill when blocked"-option.
It makes stunties a little better.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 15:23
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

xnoelx wrote:
My suggestion: LRB7 = 3rd ed & Death Zone. So many cards. Everything is fixed. Happiness abounds.


We have a winner \o/

Give me back my star players, and the joy of drawing the Big Match random event!

I'd also add the Big Guy compendium rules in there Very Happy
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 15:24 Reply with quote Back to top

zakatan wrote:
bghandras wrote:
New proposal.
Normal skill: 20k
Movement or armor increase: 20k
Double or Agility increase: 30k
Strength increase: 40k

Would be still some of them bloaty sometimes (I would still reject some movement and armor and take a normal skill), but much less bloaty on stat increase.


I actually loved it when the stat increases counted just as any other skill. This seems fine though, together with cummulative cost of skills it would solve many teambuilding issues from CRP, which to me is encouraging the legend+rookies formula.

1st skill 10TV
2nd skill 20TV
3rd skill 30TV
...
60th skill 60TV

Optional:
+AG/double +10TV
+ST +20

This way legends would pay for their effectiveness, and having multiple legends on a team would be extremely expensive, while having a balanced team becomes more TV efficient.

Alternatively (or on top), I liked the skill cap/aging proposed in some thread, for which aging doesn't produce injuries but caps the progression of the player, who is unable to gain more skills.

1. Don't punish the stat increase. I am pretty sure that many of them should have been declined from a powergaming point of view.
2. I would say you don't even need the 30k for double (skill) if you have the progressional penalty for each "level".

_________________
Image
Dominik



Joined: Oct 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 15:49 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:
New proposal.
Normal skill: 20k
Movement or armor increase: 20k
Double or Agility increase: 30k
Strength increase: 40k

Would be still some of them bloaty sometimes (I would still reject some movement and armor and take a normal skill), but much less bloaty on stat increase.


+ST is effectively more worth than just two and a half normal skills, especially in a more developed team. Its usually the multiple +ST teams who magically win major tournaments.
Kam



Joined: Nov 06, 2012

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 16:02 Reply with quote Back to top

I think we should start with agreeing on what's broken in CRP and stick to that. Keep in mind that any tweak is susceptible to make the game more imbalanced (in a bad way), even if it sounds minor.

_________________
GLN 17 is out!
Image
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 16:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Fabulander wrote:
Wreckage wrote:
mrt's list had pretty decent ideas but he had it easy posting after Fabulander lowered the bar.
Well that's nice of you Crying or Very sad
So you don't like Bank? I honestly think not including it is an oversight in the current rules. YMMV.

I guess I was staring for quite a while on the screen after you wrote what you wrote. I had to stop myself from responding because I was afraid to come off condescending. Which I felt was inappropriate because your suggestions were bold and seemed to be carried by a genuine desire to contribute to the rules.
So in the end I wrote nothing.

But I may have aswell written: "There are too many things wrong too adress them all."

What was your saving point? Banking rules? ...Lets see what you wrote about it...

Fabulander wrote:
Also, Bank. Bank, bank, bank and bank, just like in NTBB or LRB6. [..] Amassing huge treasuries makes some tough teams effectively impervious to damage, and otherwise those money reserves have no bearing on the game, which just seems like lazy game design.


Ahem, yeah thats a good point. You repeated somebody elses idea which wasn't a terrible idea. I guess that is a good one to bring up.
Personally I don't feel like that is one of the weaknesses of the current rules at all. But I can see how it can be considered something like a "D" category concern. (as in "A" -very important, "B" -still important, etc.)

I guess personally I could probably live with a less intense version of the bank rules like max. 300k or max. 500k.
If they would actually get through with the original idea to only allow 100k per team, I'd probably weep. It would be a huge blow for the expensive agile elf teams. LRB4 was always a struggle because you couldn't keep any treasury for replacements in order to not inflate the TR. But then every game was a huge risk, because you could never make enough money to replace a player. 100k would offer a little bit of relief but ultimateively you could still end up having to play dozens of games in recovery just because you couldn't save up money when you were doing fine.
That being said, yes you are right. It's not an idea I like but it wasn't one of the really terrible ideas you had... like the whole GFI thing for instance Wink
Dominik



Joined: Oct 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 17:05 Reply with quote Back to top

I had four Tomb Guardians killed and a Blitz-Ra permanently injured in one game, so a limitation to 500k is theoretically too tough.
Joemanji



Joined: Jan 15, 2011

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 17:13 Reply with quote Back to top

This thread makes me glad BB is not a democracy. Surely the first step is identify problems (or areas of improvement) rather than suggest solutions? The latter is just akin to fan fiction.

For example : someone might argue that rewarding killing all mens (and this next bit is important) as a strategy for both winning and team development is problem. Blood Bowl and bashing should come hand in hand, of course. But perhaps we might argue that mindlessly blocking and ignoring the ball should not be rewarded above the action itself. A good game a) has a rewarding learning curve (it is currently too easy to top out at CPOMB) and b) does not actively discourage new coaches (by permanently damaging their teams all the time).

This problem is probably most obviously evidenced in the CPOMB combination. Now, and again this is the important bit, the solution to this problem might not be a change to any of the three skills involved. It might actually be a change to TV, or the SPPs you earn for Casualties or the way winnings is calculated. Or it might be a nerf to one of those skills.

1. Identify Problem.
2. Identify Many Potential Solutions
3. Decide Upon Best Solution.

_________________
*This post may have been made without the use of a hat.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2015 - 18:02 Reply with quote Back to top

This is why I favor making Strength Access on Pestigors and Beastmen a double - you can still create Clawpomb players with your Warriors but now there is a genuine opportunity cost for using your doubles to create a part of a Clawpomb player. If you want to use 6 doubles to create 3 clawpomb beastmen ringing in at 160 TV each, fine, so be it.

In all the changes I listed, maybe absent the Sure Feet Leap thing, I think forcing more hard choices at the skill selection phase is better. Sure Feet Leap, I just want there to be some hope for Slann, even if it makes Wardancers more reliable (although I'd argue that the opportunity cost of taking a leap reroll over Tackle, Strip Ball, Mighty Blow/Guard or Stats might be interesting enough to force a decent amount of thought and pondering)
Fabulander



Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2015 - 14:15 Reply with quote Back to top

Wreckage wrote:
I had to stop myself from responding because I was afraid to come off condescending.

[...]

What was your saving point? Banking rules?

You repeated somebody elses idea which wasn't a terrible idea. I guess that is a good one to bring up.


I think your effort kind of misfired then, and your post seemed quite condescending to me. I generally dislike being called stupid, even by random internet forum nicknames, and I happen to find the discussion relevant, so I'll attempt to clear things up a bit.

I never claimed any sort of ownership over any of those ideas, and in fact, if you re-read in context, everything in those two posts were in response to other suggestions from previous posters, throwing stuff on the table with the intent of amassing many alternative solutions. In fact the only thing that wasn't a response to another suggestion was Bank, which is why I thought it would be funny to hear what your problem was with that rule. It seems that the irony didn't come across Confused

I simply responded to a number of ideas with comments or alternative suggestions:

I felt that one idea for a new human roster might be too good, so I suggested an alternative. We could discuss these fairly small changes all day, I just posted the ones I think would be best, anyone is free to disagree.

I was initially excited about the TV cuts for injured players, but felt it was too easily abused, so suggested a more discrete version. After this I was convinced that this was still too problematic - by a poster who bothered to respond to the content of my posts...

Another poster had suggested adding some d8 rolls to the game. I disagree, and would prefer building on the existing game mechanics. Since I otherwise agreed that GFI's seem a bit easy, I posted several other possibilities for consideration.

One was, as mentioned, an old and rather extreme idea which, I completely agree, would change the game massively. It's an idea that I've heard many times, and while it is probably a good thing that it was never implemented in anything but house rules, I would probably prefer it ever so slightly to introducing d8 rolls into blood bowl actions. I consider neither to be optimal, and never claimed otherwise. So just to be absolutely clear: I don't personally think that blood bowl would be better with unlimited GFI's.

The other one is my own idea, which I feel is more elegant and much less drastic. I'll explain why in a moment, but it goes for both ideas that I threw them into the mix in response to another post, not as a finished draft for a new rulebook. And I honestly thought that was fairly clear. I may have been wrong.

Of the two different suggestions for possible GFI changes, one is very simply this: You add one line of text to the rules for dodging, so that making a GFI roll adds a -1 modifier to any dodge roll you might also be making for this square. The modifiers would be:
Making a dodge roll, +1
Making a GFI roll, -1
Per opposing tackle zone, -1

First off, this is something that seems realistic, it is an easy change to an existing mechanic and it is intuitively easy to implement. I find all of these things to be good things, as long as the new rule doesn't mess up the game. I don't think it would.

This is not something that will come into play very often. It doesn't actually make GFI's more difficult, but it might make life a bit harder for those teams who rely on 'strolling about a bit too easily', as it was. Assuming all NTBB changes are implemented, I think elves and skaven might have it a little too easy (which is just my hypothetical and thoroughly unproven assumption Smile ), and I think it is already something of a grievance to many of their opponents that an elf with decent movement and Dodge can run from one end of the pitch into a tackle zone on the other end, pick up a loose ball and dodge out, using their skill re-roll on any unlucky 1 for dodging, and saving the team re-rolls for any 1 on GFI. I'd like to see these kinds of long plays become slightly less reliable on Ag4 teams. Slower, less agile teams sometimes attempt these stunts as well, and would now have a much harder time pulling it off, but the nerf would kick in much less often, since their strengths should give them other options. It would also be a nerf for teams who rely heavily on one turn touchdowns. I believe these are good consequences. Feel free to disagree, but if you consider this to be a 'lowering of the bar', then I'd like to hear why. As much as I like the idea, I wouldn't claim to know any and all of it's possible consequences, but since this is a brainstorm, not a political meeting, I think it's fair to just put things on the table.

I personally feel like Bank is weirdly absent from many of these discussions, considering that it is actually already part of LRB6, even if it isn't in CRP. There are different suggestions for the specific cash limit, but on the whole I think the rule is sound. Some people like to look at large numbers on their roster, but I think that something that starts out as an important post-match roll and a huge part of the early metagame should also have some bearing on what goes on on the pitch later on. Of course it is not my idea, and I don't claim to be any kind of genius for agreeing with it, but I think it should be on the table when discussing a hypothetical LRB7.

All in all, I wasn't aware that there was any sort of competition to come up with the best complete draft for a new rulebook, and since it seems I didn't get that memo, I'd prefer not getting insulted for taking part in casually exchanging ideas. This response is already way too much text and way too much effort for an internet forum discussion of a board game, but I have seen you post very sensible stuff elsewhere on these forums, so I decided it was worth it to take the time and try to clear the air.

Thank you for reading, have a nice day. Smile

Martin
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2015 - 14:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Bank rule is bad, Jervis was right.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
Fabulander



Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2015 - 14:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Really? How so?
zakatan



Joined: May 17, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2015 - 15:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Fabulander wrote:
Really? How so?


overly complicated for the meager benefits (if any) that it carries

_________________
Image
Fabulander



Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2015 - 15:54 Reply with quote Back to top

The explanation in LRB6 is too complex, I'll definitely give you that. I think it could be a result of wanting to add new rules text without deleting too much. I guess this means more red text, making it easier for experienced players to pinpoint what is new and what isn't, leaving us with twice as much text. LRB6 isn't flawless in this, at least the pdf I have still includes a mention of Petty Cash in the sequence overview, but no explanation of it anywhere else, since it was actually replaced by Bank. In a new LRB that could be changed

I think Bank could have been explained in a much more simple way, by changing the rules for Team Value to include players, staff, re-rolls, fan factor and treasury. Then, introducing the rules for the bank would be much simpler and shorter, and the different points in the match sequence could be easily explained.
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