Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
 Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 13:52 |
 
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Endzone wrote: | | You could also argue block is worth 40K. Think of the typical starting roster for amazon. 4 blitzers, why? A blitzer is a linewoman with block for 40K (to start with). If block isn't worth 40K then why do teams choose 4 blitzers to start? Answer: because there is nothing better to spend the starting money on, so in that initial team build scenario block is worth 40K. |
*cough* S access *cough*
Sorry, had to clear my throat, somebody blowing smoke into the air. |
Of course blizters have strength access and yes this is worth something. The point is it clumsy to do the pricing this way because it doesn't work well at low TV. Other rosters do not charge so much for strength access and this is a contributing factor to the reason for the notorious 11 linewomen build. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:10 |
|
No matter where you draw the line, the value of that amazon blitzer is less as you increase their numbers. 1 is extremely good, 2 are useful 3 are OK, 4 are overpriced. (Relatively speaking what they are doing at middle TV.) |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:15 |
|
I'm not sure why it's anyone else's business whether you run an 11 man team or a 16 man team. Or a 4 man team with 7 journeymen. Or a 9 man team with space for a star and a merc.
Nuffle's number is 11. You should start with 11 players. But is that even a rule?
The sky is not falling in on "the hobby" because of 11 man teams. Are they an issue for anyone outside the Box/MM? Even in the box hit them hard first half and they'll be short handed in the second. It is a hit and miss tactic.
Unless of course the other team are CPOMBers who will ensure that you'll be starting the second half 8 vs 8 or 9 vs 9 regardless.  |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:21 |
|
There is nothing terrible with that. On the other hand people like variety, and dislikes too much repetition. and people perceive it even in unimportant subjects!
If lets say the number of opponents with exactly 11 players would be 10% less likely, then the perceived variety would be bigger. Nothing big here, but also nothing bad. |
_________________
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:26 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: |
The first one was: Stalling. I see a lot of newer people to the site that get really annoyed by this. I really see it as part of the game but thinking back, I can really understand why this is so annoying to so many; it is completely contrary to most real-life sports. In real-life sports/games everyone usually wants to score as many as possible. To purposely restrict the score from occurring is seen as blasphemy in the world of sports.
|
Didn't really read all the comments but felt I had to comment on this. It's actually a quite popular tactic in Rugby 7s. Whicch is mostly owed to the fact that a half only takes 7 minutes.
Conversly, if a Bloodbowl half was played in real time it would be probably even shorter than that.
In games like American Football its also common to stall time but you usually only do it towards the end of the game. I guess it is done in every sport from some point in time of the game where it is actually feasible. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:49 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | There is nothing terrible with that. On the other hand people like variety, and dislikes too much repetition. and people perceive it even in unimportant subjects!
If lets say the number of opponents with exactly 11 players would be 10% less likely, then the perceived variety would be bigger. Nothing big here, but also nothing bad. |
How many teams are we talking about now? One rookie lino is 2.5 skills. I'd rather have the extra man. Two spare linos is five skills. Now that may be worth thinking about.
But a lot of the time at least one player will be out injured. So I'm definitely going to be "striving for" 13/14 players. Screw yer journeyman rule.
But no, the team would need to be big before I'd go to 15.
And one slot would need to be spare for a star. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 14:53 |
|
Me personally prefers 12/13. I am not a big advocate of 11. I agree with the risks of doing so. But i would not mind pushing the pendulum sligthly to the sub-direction. (pun intended) |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 15:32 |
|
The number of reserves is TV-related, at low TV the expected attrition is low so you probably are not going to need spare men.
At low TV playing an 11 Orcs team is fine, at middle TV you need at least 12.
At high TV Elves might perform better with reserves but keeping more than 11 players at high TV is problematic (SE + injuries), also, if they had reserves they could not induce a Wizard. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 15:41 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | I'm not really sure I like the idea of handicapping based on team performance. It sounds a bit like you're trying to punish success - would this lead to some sort of BB communism, where every team trends over time towards a 50:50 win/loss record?  |
All it needs is a change of how we rank. If you rank by the handicap (i.e. wins - losses) then you don't punish success at all: you rank by it. The better you rank the harder your games become. Seems entirely intuitive to me.
| Quote: | | Would we see more coaches spam-gangfouling or implementing other forms of less-competitive meta-gaming, because they know the handicapping will help them out anyway? |
Not sure how the handicapping will help them since their ranking would decrease. The fact of the matter is that if someone is playing a different game - and that's what playing without winning as a primary aim is - then there will always be issues with them. At least in this case everyone has the same chance of playing them and, if they do end up winning through such a meta their handicap decreases. You get exactly the handicap you deserve.
@ Endzone - ok, at least 30k. My objection still stands, though: it's arbitrary. In fact, it's exactly as arbitrary as skill costs are now. Then there's the issue of how the meta effects the skills. A meta which is bash-heavy will put minimal emphasis on tackle, while an zon or elf-heavy meta will increase the requirement for the skill. Under your system it's a flat cost regardless, while under the one I have suggested it simply comes down to how you deal with the meta regardless of what it is. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 15:49 |
|
| Nightbird wrote: |
My question is, if this were to make a comeback would it be part of a solution to CLAWBOMB as well as making carrying a bench more common 
And if not, what problems 'could' it potentially solve |
Before I give you my answer to this I think some coaches need to understand how 2ED subs worked.
The #1 thing about 2ED was how the game was played. It was the first team to score 3 touchdowns won. So, the focus was on scoring. So stalling was only to take some more shots at the other team.
So stalling in 2ED was limited because the other team could keep bringing players on the pitch, remember, the total focus was to score, there was no turn markers and halfs and all of that. Which is also why some games could take 3 hours to play. 
last thing was that the "bench" was on the sideline and 4 squares wide, it was 2 squares up from the endzone. So subs came in on your "half" which greatly aided the defense. Players could come on to the pitch at the start of their turn, full move from the sideline. You could never have more than 11 players on the field.
SO lets look at CRP
Having a bench would promote having a 14-16 man roster. Now they are useful.
Would it impact the "heavy Bash" game? You are getting pummelled, will the reserves be able to stem the tide? Or would you just be feeding more players into the jaws of death?
CPOMB blows off the LOS, first 4 block/blitz depitch 4 guys. You have a 3 man bench, do you bring them out? Maybe, maybe not.
Having the bench in the same place as 2ED helps on defense but if you are on offense in the other "half" and playing a slow, pondering team, and it is Turn 5-6, well it is almost pointless. Subs then just become sweepers in your end to make sure the other team does not get a turnover and come flying back down the pitch.
Here is what I think would happen. Coaches at first would think that subs are a big deal. When in reality, because the game is now 16 turns, 2 halfs. That allowing subs would have little impact in the big picture. Sure, there will be some matches that subs could tip the balance of a match.
But then again the whole idea is to promote larger benches, so, yeah, if it helps you win a match here and there, that is good, right?
I also think some coaches would still not carry a bench. They would say it only really helps in very limited situations and not worth it. Also the idea that Iam getting pounded into the pitch in the first half. Why expose my bench to that? I need those guys in the second half to at least have a team to field. Why expose all my players to the punishment in the first half?
Bottom line for me: I think it would be fun and promote larger rosters but have minimal impact on the actual game, most of the time.
I also think allowing the subs to come onto the field in the endzone, any square, is to much. Designate a bench area on the sideline 4 squares wide and that is were they come onto the pitch. |
_________________
Comish of the: 
Last edited by PainState on %b %19, %2016 - %15:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 15:52 |
|
@dode
I think there is a contradiction in your reasoning. You mentioned TACKLE as a way to deal with the meta. On the other hand you promoted the coach rank as matchmaking principle. Combining the 2 would have issues with a highly ranked coach switching to a worse team, or a low ranked coach would switch to a better team. So the meta issues like tackle would resurface every time there is a change of teams of tiers. So your reasoning is flawed that it would be neutral to lets say TACKLE.
Sidenote: Your system would punish good coaches very harshly for trying weak teams, which would result them playing ONLY with tier1 teams. |
_________________
|
|
Beerox
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:05 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: |
*cough* S access *cough*
Sorry, had to clear my throat, somebody blowing smoke into the air. |
*somewhere a Chaos Pact lino giggles* |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:06 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | @dode
I think there is a contradiction in your reasoning. You mentioned TACKLE as a way to deal with the meta. On the other hand you promoted the coach rank as matchmaking principle. Combining the 2 would have issues with a highly ranked coach switching to a worse team, or a low ranked coach would switch to a better team. So the meta issues like tackle would resurface every time there is a change of teams of tiers. So your reasoning is flawed that it would be neutral to lets say TACKLE. |
No, I mentioned tackle as an example in two different metas. The "flat rate" costs it the same in each meta regardless of its actual usefulness, while the one I suggested will charge it more for being more useful. As it gets more useful and you win more games you pay more for it (actually you pay for a "winning" team build, but tackle is a part of that); as you start losing games the premium you are paying for your build goes down.
Also, I'm absolutely not talking about a coach rank. This is a team rank only. Coach rank can't be calculated outside the context of the team without huge amounts of data due to the variables involved.
| Quote: | | Sidenote: Your system would punish good coaches very harshly for trying weak teams, which would result them playing ONLY with tier1 teams. |
I think this is because you think I am talking about a coach rather than a team rank. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:09 |
|
Ah, ok, i misunderstood the team rank and coach rank. That makes more sense.
On the other hand i think Endzone did not promote flat rate for skills, but wanted to differentiate core skills and fringe skills in pricing. |
_________________
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:33 |
|
The other idea floating out there that I think has merit, to promote larger reserves is that only your top 11 players in terms of TV are counted, not the entire roster. That way you could have, lets say, 5 rookie linemen in the reserve and count nothing towards your TV.
Only top 11 Players count for TV from players.
If you did this idea, well, then, there would be 0 reasons then not to have a 16 man roster. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
