Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:24 |
 
|
here are some of thoe perpetual league quotes for you. enjoy!
Jervis Johnson wrote:
The version you are now reading is the PBBL (Perpetual Blood Bowl League)
edition
The single most important thing I needed to sort out with the league rules
was the problem of the ‘part-time’ coach. Anybody who has played in a
Blood Bowl league before will understand this problem. When the league
starts up you get loads of enthusiastic coaches all clamouring to take
part. After half a dozen games, however, quite a few of the coaches will
have started missing games, or have dropped out of the league
altogether, especially if their team isn’t doing very well... The way that I
tried to get round this problem was by creating an ‘open’ league format.
This places the emphasis on arranging matches and playing games
firmly on the shoulders of the coaches themselves. In this way
enthusiastic coaches can play as many games as they like, or rather, as
many games as they can find opponents to play against. Meanwhile, less
enthusiastic coaches can play fewer games, as and when they like.
This system worked well in the 3rd edition rules, with one very important
exception: teams just kept getting better and better if they played
matches, and if they played enough matches there was simply no way
for a starting team to compete against them. This was not what I had
intended to happen at all; the league rules were there to provide
continuity between games, not to allow coaches to create ‘super-teams’
that couldn’t be beaten unless an opponent had racked up enough
matches.
This problem came about because the handicapping system I’d built into
the 3rd edition rules didn’t give enough help to the underdog. In the years
following the release of 3rd edition a number of increasingly complex
‘patches’ were applied to the game rules to try and deal with the
problem, but none of them really worked as well as I hoped, and they
added a lot of complexity to the game. In the end I became frustrated
with the whole thing and decided to go back to the drawing board and
start again with a new handicap system. After a few wrong turns this
resulted in an early version of the rules for Inducements that you will find
in the new League rules, and the associated rules that increase the value
of a player as they learn more skills. These two things are a lot simpler
than what we had before, and make it much more straight-forward to
balance a match between two teams of differing experience. They also
mean that the Blood Bowl league rules have finally achieved the design
goals I set for them back in 1993 (well, better late than never!)
Some comments from Tom Anders:
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=398639#p398639
GalakStarScraper wrote:
Jervis Johnson's definition of a "perpetual" league was one where player could come and go, stick with teams they love or start new ones in the midst of seasoned teams and the league kept running just fine. The idea of his for prepetual Blood Bowl was for a league that never had to be restarted in order to work. 3rd edition didn't work that way ... you had to restart the league from scratch every couple seasons or new teams spent forever developing because they would be slaughtered. This fact was pretty true all the way through LRB 4.0. LRB 5.0 was Jervis introducing the perpetual league concept where a league would never need to be restarted in order to work.
That's what that word meant in relationship to Blood Bowl.
So in Jervis's mind ... perpetual to him meant a league that constantly had teams retiring and new ones starting as player interest changed or new players joined and that was not a problem.
Tom
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=398663#p398663
GalakStarScraper wrote:
Yes it was the intention that if a player never wanted to retire his team that would be okay. That's why the attritrion rules pack the improved punch they do with CRP, why the apothecary is worse and why Spiralling Expenses are there. All 3 are meant to help the game trim down a higher TV team.
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?p=165017#p165017
GalakStarScraper wrote:
:
My thoughts on this. FUMBBL has proven without a doubt to me that perpetual Blood Bowl can work. IF Cyanide would program in ALL the inducements (including all the Star Players (they can leave out the Special Play Cards though)) and the rest of the 21 teams and make sure that you have a way to only have games played through non-cherry picking and non-I'll get my friends to help me cheat methods ... then it would be readily appartant that this game does work with teams playing for as many games as they want. FUMBBL has teams that have played THOUSANDS of games. And LRB 5.0/6.0 takes what FUMBBL had and made it even more balanced.
Yes at some point Blood Bowl becomes about team management over team growth ... but that is delibrate and meant to be a part of the game. Allowing continuous growth is broken and reaches the boring point that dode74 mentions.
Before you try to suggest that this games needs changed ... can you use that energy to actually work to get the whole game available first.
Seriously ... I spent thousands of hours over the last 5 years re-writing the rulebook. The BBRC had the help of some great people doing it. I believe without question that what Doubleskulls and I present to you in LRB 6.0 is the most balanced rulebook Blood Bowl has ever had. It doesn't need more ... its that good and I know its that good. However ... too many are judging this game on just a fraction of its rules as implemented by Cyanide. Before we start looking for wierd features in Blitz mode ... let's give everyone a chance to play the actual game first
Galak |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:26 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
- Debate ftw indeed! My point was that my opinion is that "a little more variation is both fun and good for the game". You are free to disagree with that, of course, but you are yet to do so.
|
Maybe but that is waht L is for is it not?
Open leagues are where people pick up quick games. I personally want fair ones in ranked and box, and not to be a 15% disadvantage if his figure is correct. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:28 |
|
@ Garion, I believe I answer your post above - Galak was praising FUMBBL with house ruled matchmaking by TS. And it was clearly very good. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:31 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | @ Woodstock
- Minmaxing is bad because it is boring. The emphasis on TV means that you have to get the maximum bang for your buck, and the fact is that some skills work better in combination that others. You and I both know that this is a highly complex game, and not all skill combos will be equal. |
So start with the basics, the skills and the lack of traits. Fix the cause, not the symptoms.
| Quote: | | - So you agree that the inducements work, which is my point. Your talk of CPOMB counters and Galak's statement on them is something of a red herring. |
It shows lack of testing and a wrong mindset. You buff one skill, and nerf its counter into the ground. You make a passive skill counter an active skill. Fend is not like tackle that works both ways.
The only inducements worth are wizard and chainsaw, and both of them still rely on good dice.
| Quote: | | - Where in there does it say "huge open league formats". I see Galak praises FUMBBL (and rightly so), but wasn't FUMBBL at the time using the TS formula to matchmake? He was praising a platform which used house rules to make the league work, and work well. Clearly those house rules were needed. Or are you now arguing that no house rules at all are needed and that we should do away with the 15% rule altogether? |
The matchmaker was based on TR/TS yes, but that should not really matter as that as well was limited back then, nor was it a secret of how things worked. Galak even claims that 'LRB 5.0/6.0 takes what FUMBBL had and made it even more balanced.". How is that not saying LRB6 should be perfect for FUMBBL? |
|
|
JigerJones
Joined: Oct 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:31 |
|
Perhaps a player with X number of matches played could ignore the 15% limit, or have the option to, if they had the team on the lower end of the scale. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:33 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | Quote: | @Woodstock
- It is bad because you say you want even games but the measure you are using doesn't give them. Take any two teams at the same TV and unless you min-max them then one is likely "stronger" than the other. Matching by TV rewards min-maxing. |
Min-maxing is only bad due to the one dimensional skill builds of the overpowered teams. Ow and btw, any kind of matchmaking promotes min-maxing with power teams, at what level they min-max will change however.
|
Long lived teams have had time to assign their skills in an optimal way and fire players that don't fit the scheme.
I don't see min/maxing at higher TV as a problem but but sitting at 1400 to bushwhack undeveloped teams is effectively cherrypicking. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:33 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | @ Garion, I believe I answer your post above - Galak was praising FUMBBL with house ruled matchmaking by TS.
|
Before CRP pretty much all games on FUMBBL were either in Ranked with a +/- 40 rule (or some such) where people could choose their own opponent or in L where Leagues roam to this day.
While TS was certainly visible in Ranked, there wasn't really a "matchmaking" system as such. I was away when Box was implemented, but it's my understanding that under LRB 4.0 it was barely alive. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:35 |
|
Without wishing to complicate this arguement further, I'd like to add 2 points.
TV is the official rating system of CRP, and we shouldn't really diversify from it. Yes LRB 4 we did, but that TR unlike TV didn't take the individual match rating into account (which is important in ranked and blackbox). Personally I'd like to see changes, but unless GW wish to change the system, fumbbl won't either.
There are major differences with a place like here and playing on the tabletop. Playing on the table top, you are unlikely to be in the position to take advantage. Either it is a tourny environment and impossible to do so, or part of a club, where any actions are viewed by the group as a whole.
Here if allowed you could find a niche, where you could take advantage of anyone who passed by, like a predator fish. Your actions are simply not accounted for. Ok, it's impossible to remove all advantages you could gain, however minimising the TV difference in the competitive divisions is a big step. Remember in the competitive divisions there are coach rankings, on how well you are playing as a coach. It is not intended to be a 'how well you can pick your games' rating. These divisions for non tourny play, follow 2 criteria. 1. Follow the official rules as close as possible, for a large online environment. 2. To make matches as even as possible (as per the official rules) so that matches are decided hopefully by dice and skill rather than ability to hunt smaller fish.
If this isn't working then there is a problem with the official team evaluation, rather than fumbbl's rules. At the moment, there I don't see any serious problems with match making, it's working rather well. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:40 |
|
| RedFish wrote: | | dode74 wrote: | @ Garion, I believe I answer your post above - Galak was praising FUMBBL with house ruled matchmaking by TS.
|
Before CRP pretty much all games on FUMBBL were either in Ranked with a +/- 40 rule (or some such) where people could choose their own opponent or in L where Leagues roam to this day.
While TS was certainly visible in Ranked, there wasn't really a "matchmaking" system as such. I was away when Box was implemented, but it's my understanding that under LRB 4.0 it was barely alive. |
It did well at first but died a death I believe due to the lack of racial diversity and it was considered an uber bash division. Journeymen would have made it a very different place imo. Journey are a great addition to the rules for that type of division but there are still many problems elsewhere. Also ranked still had caps in place back then which go against what Galak wanted.
I think Koadah's idea of allowing your team to choose to play at higher brackets than 15% is the only viable alternative. Give them a tick box or something for 30% 50% and any Tv difference could be possible. But would anyone use it other than the odd fling coach? Probably not, but i may be wrong?
| dode74 wrote: | | @ Garion, I believe I answer your post above - Galak was praising FUMBBL with house ruled matchmaking by TS. And it was clearly very good. |
and TS was essentially the same as TV with a few nobs on, and i dont really think you answered my post tbh.
But anyway I think Harvestmouse has pretty much hit the nail on the head above. |
_________________
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:55 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | My contention is that the 15% rule has consequences which are unintended. Did you guys really intend for 95% of your games to take place within 150TV of each other, for over 50% of your games to be so closely matched by TV that even Babes can't be taken? That's what's happening, and TV and team strength are not necessarily equivalent, particularly at higher TVs. |
Wouldn't everyone's goal when creating a competitive game be to minimize the effects of everything but player skill? What you seem to be saying is that inducements are a deeply important aspect of Blood Bowl and that people miss out by not using them more.. and that's where the real difference of opinion may lie.
| koadah wrote: | | Obviously many people would tick TV matching but quite a few would like to play some of the bigger teams without having to over bloat their own. |
You'd be one of those people, as you mentioned in the one of the infinite CLPOMB threads 
| dode74 wrote: | | Minmaxing is bad because it is boring. The emphasis on TV means that you have to get the maximum bang for your buck, and the fact is that some skills work better in combination that others. You and I both know that this is a highly complex game, and not all skill combos will be equal. |
Any time you say something is "boring" you're really just using "because I think it is, so it is" as your reasoning. If you find min-maxing boring then by all means, don't do it - but you finding it boring doesn't mean it is objectively boring. Obviously plenty of people disagree or they wouldn't be doing it.
Now, that said, look at koadah's strategy for his teams. By keeping them at a TV value below that of the typical massive CLPOMB basher team, he never has to face off against them. Likewise, those well developed bashy teams end up facing off against each other on a very frequent basis, which keeps them in check. The "sweet spot" for various teams and builds results in an increased likelihood that you face off against other teams with similar sweet spots, thereby reducing your ability to exploit your team's strength - you'll be facing the same race at the same level of development, or other races that are in similar spots, quite often.
If anything, the narrow range allows people to choose their preferred play style and to have a much higher likelihood of encountering people with a similar play style. The only people it's really bad for are those high TV playerkiller teams who want nothing more than to face off against lowbie teams they can leave in ruins.
The only time I see a narrow range being an issue is if it is preventing people from finding a game at all. If that is happening then either allowing people to opt out of the narrow TV range, or having the matchmaking system slowly widen the range until a game is found, would be best. |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:59 |
|
In my opinion, the main problem is:
- The "leagues" of [R] and [B] are not leagues in the traditional sense or as the CRP puts it they don't "have seasons that end with a tournament". (pretty much what Harvestmouse said) The open environment is not a perpetual league, where you have seasons following seasons, with any of the possible ways described on page 30 and 31 of the CRP. Just assume you had the options of page 31: In a pure open environment, a killer team would just not get played full stop, but officially "win" lots of games for nothing really. If there was a goal, and a known pool of opponents, then metagaming and team development of course goes a totally different course.
| Woodstock wrote: | | Galak even claims that 'LRB 5.0/6.0 takes what FUMBBL had and made it even more balanced.". How is that not saying LRB6 should be perfect for FUMBBL? |
because "more balanced" isn't "perfect for FUMBBL".
I think you will agree that this is the "most balanced" ruleset so far - heck, Blackbox and FUMBBL now even rely on the official measure, that's a sign of how good that measure is. It is definitely much better than TR of LRB4.
Up to now, the complaints have not come from real leagues of [L], but only from the open non-league environment, and especially from the one environment that doesn't allow the option to just "lose without ill effect" (or as you'd call it in [R]: "not play the game at all"). |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 00:05 |
|
Dode, I think it's quite simple really....it is a houserule.
The judgement of Christer is that there are more fair games produced by enforcing a 15% limit than there are by allowing it not to.
There could be a more complicated formula, but crucially, R is a division that you propose games against each other. In order to do that, you have to be able to tell at a glance whether your team is legally allowed to play each other. FUMBBL is run from all Christers hard work, and as a result, any more complicated feature would require a new set of interfaces and a lot more work on his behalf. 15% is a very easy limit to comprehend, and allows enough inducements without being unbalanced. |
_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
 |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 00:12 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | | Woodstock wrote: | | Galak even claims that 'LRB 5.0/6.0 takes what FUMBBL had and made it even more balanced.". How is that not saying LRB6 should be perfect for FUMBBL? |
because "more balanced" isn't "perfect for FUMBBL".
I think you will agree that this is the "most balanced" ruleset so far - heck, Blackbox and FUMBBL now even rely on the official measure, that's a sign of how good that measure is. It is definitely much better than TR of LRB4.
Up to now, the complaints have not come from real leagues of [L], but only from the open non-league environment, and especially from the one environment that doesn't allow the option to just "lose without ill effect" (or as you'd call it in [R]: "not play the game at all"). |
Hehe, ok ok. Not perfect, but nothing is. CRP should work here however, that is what I read and what I assume is mend.
CRP might be more balanced, but it certainly made the game dull and boring. I would prefer playing LRB4 instead. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 00:20 |
|
| Quote: | | You'd be one of those people, as you mentioned in the one of the infinite CLPOMB threads |
Sometimes sure. But to win the Sprint you have to play the big teams. As things stand I would have to bloat my team to make that bracket making it uncompetitive.
| VoodooMike wrote: |
Now, that said, look at koadah's strategy for his teams. By keeping them at a TV value below that of the typical massive CLPOMB basher team, he never has to face off against them. Likewise, those well developed bashy teams end up facing off against each other on a very frequent basis, which keeps them in check. The "sweet spot" for various teams and builds results in an increased likelihood that you face off against other teams with similar sweet spots, thereby reducing your ability to exploit your team's strength - you'll be facing the same race at the same level of development, or other races that are in similar spots, quite often. |
This is why this conversation began in the 'lineman' thread.
I don't keep my TV down to avoid C-POMBers. I said that people 'could'.
The point is I don't want to buy 3 no skill linos to just sit on the bench until everyone else is dead. If my skilled players couldn't survive what can the no skill guys do?
Now if I have a wizard, extra apoths, babes I can try to win the game.
As it stands it's boring because the different races are segregated into sweet spot bands so you don't get to play teams from other races who are also in their sweet spot. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 00:24 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | CRP might be more balanced, but it certainly made the game dull and boring. I would prefer playing LRB4 instead. |
I prefer CRP, in real leagues. We had to restart our local leagues every 4 seasons under LRB4. With CRP we've come over that point (well, just), we had rookie teams joining and doing well one season to struggle the other, we had old teams join doing well and struggling. It works well so far, and I think it will work on well.
The point is of course that in such an environment you can plan your build matching to your opponents build. If one team evolved into a massive clawpomber, then I am sure a lot of skaven, woodies and pro elves would come the following season(s) to take advantage of the lack of tackle (and guard and block - depending on lots of things). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Borg Invasion
Search
