Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 08:50 |
 
|
oh no, don't take debog from us, new rules  |
|
|
Silent_Hastati
Joined: Nov 04, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:01 |
|
Oh, a thought about [L] teams.
If implemented, I would like to request the ability for league commissioners to manually set when a season end, with the bonuses $$$ kept track of between then and when a "season start" flag is declared, as well as the ability to determine what does and doesn't count as a seasonal game. I'm asking because how it's implemented could have some pretty serious effects on multi-stage leagues, such as those that have inter-division playoffs at the end of season, or multiple round robins per "season". |
_________________
 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:05 |
|
| Silent_Hastati wrote: | | As said by others though, it's a bit hard to debate the merits of rules that many of us don't have access to yet. |
I'm sure that someone will eventually break ranks and photocopy / paste them onto the Internet. I don't expect GW to put out a freebie this time. If I want the rules I've already paid for as a hard copy in the app as a soft copy, I have to pay again! It might make people slightly more reticent to put out a dodgy copy, but I'm sure that will come with time (although, obviously boo and we won't link to it). I suggest you just buy it anyway if you can; it's a fun read, they've done a good job of it all.
It does make these chats harder. Snippets are pasted with misleading contexts in isolation, English isn't everyone's first language, it's easy to get confused (I'm much more confused reading the thoughts of some people on the Internet making it harder than it needs to be than by reading the book and the chat of sensible people with the book). I'm sure the fog will lift in time. It's more or less the same game anyway. Whilst we're focusing on changes, an awful lot more has stayed the same. |
|
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 14:32 |
|
I might be in the silent majority here but for competitive blood bowl I play in a league, where we have seasons, promotions and relegations, and glittering prizes for teams and players.
Ranked and Box are really just there for casual games when/if I have extra time above and beyond my league games.
I mean sure R and B both have progression tournaments to give people a sense of purpose beyond just developing a high TV team, and it is fun to play in a tournament with a team you have spent years developing, but just like table top if you want even, fair and competitive tournaments all the teams have to start the tournament at the same TV.
I guess what I am saying is R and B aren't leagues in the sense of the new rules. They are something else entirely and forcing an end of season phase on them would destroy that uniqueness.
On the other hand if FUMBBL was to set up a new division that enforce say a 15 game season for all teams I could see this becoming its own beautiful division for anyone who wants to fully embrace the spirit of the new rules. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 14:53 |
|
| almic85 wrote: |
Ranked and Box are really just there for casual games when/if I have extra time above and beyond my league games.
|
I generally find Box matches way more competitive and less casual than my League matches.
In the Box the skill builds are exploited to the max and the TV is lean. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 14:54 |
|
@almic85: I don't really agree. End of season appears to be an attrition mechanic to make up for the softening of bash, removal of aging, removal(?) of spiraling expenses etc.
I don't think that quibbling over whether they are "leagues" or not is relevant.
If the commissioner wants the attrition then he should implement it in R & B. If he doesn't, he shouldn't.
I don't think that a new division would be viable given the current size of the user base.
You could just start without the attrition and see how it goes. You could then add it in when the "dwarf hate" thread starts to challenge the CPOMB thread. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Calthor
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 14:58 |
|
League play is in my opinion where my true competitive play is, indeed.
I have always seen R and B as a special entity with infinite exhibition matches, sprinkled with tournaments for flavor. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 15:07 |
|
| almic85 wrote: | | fully embrace the spirit of the new rules. |
It should read "fully embrace the spirit of the new optional rules."
It is never a good thing when a new rule book comes out, not implemented at all on FUMBBL and we are already talking about ways to tweak it or rewrite it and so forth.
Just make it a optional rule that the League div can enable and we move on. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 16:08 |
|
One simple way to increase the TV potential of teams beyond what we should expect from a number of games would be to offer tournament rewards.
You win a Brawl, you get 100K gp on your next season salary cap.
You play 10 games in the E.L.F league - you get 10K gp.
You play ARRR! with Goblins and succeed in scoring with a TTM, you get 500K gp.
OK. That last example may be a stretch, but you get the idea.
This would increase the TV of teams that play tournaments. The boost is not permanent - you need to keep playing in tournaments to enjoy the rewards.
Just imagine if we drove discretionary consumption with such monkey money.
Oh, wait.
Such kind of clause is in the rulezbook, BTW. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %28, %2016 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 16:17 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | You could then add it in when the "dwarf hate" thread starts to challenge the CPOMB thread. |
Claw and MB still exist. Dorfs still cost 70K+. They still would score less than a TD per game and inflict around 3 CAS.
How many superstar blockers would you rehire for an extra 150K? My own feeling is that Dorfs will have to work hard to reach 2000 TV. No more wiz against Nurgz, though.
All these effects are quite academic compared to what the Miscellaneous Mayhem cards will do to the game. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 18:05 |
|
| fidius wrote: | A small fraction of you have the advantage of the rest of us in that you have access to the actual rules. But from what I've read on here, the seasonal buy-back and expensive mistakes mechanisms look fairly clever to me, if the purpose is to solve the "problems" of ageless players and infinite bank. I've tried to come up with more fluffy options myself but the problem is always tuning for an unlimited number of games. GW's solution slaps hard limits on, rendering tuning more or less unnecessary.
Problems might be:
1) picking for TDs and CAS will be rampant
2) artificially floating player SPP just below skill thresholds at season ends will be the new min/max with playoffs or a major in mind
3) stars-and-scrubs now explicitly encoded into the system
4) cheap rosters (undead, dwarf) will have a permanent player maturity advantage over expensive rosters (nurgle, dark elf) no matter how well-played
5) cycling players for doubles and stats now an encouraged behaviour (perhaps how it should be)
6) lower-skill coaches (who have trouble scoring and/or dealing damage) will not be able to maintain as high TV compared to the better coaches
7) certain races that deal neither CAS nor TDs effectively will have lower TV potential. (Will CAS from fouling count?)
8) TV management becomes as important in League as it is in match-making, leading to more "canon" builds, and much greater importance placed on Mighty Blow than currently
Overall I guess I'd say I'm optimistically curious, since as an RP/fluff-first player the infinite life/bank suspensions of reality have always bothered me a bit. However the incentives for "gaming" are now higher, which might be 1 step forward and 2 steps back. |
First of all, before I reply to the rest, GW's system does not place hard limits on anything. That is why I'm referring to the re-draft as "soft" ageing - it's not likely to be "soft" in anyone who has to make a decision to retire a legend, but it is soft in the sense the goalpost is not fixed.
Because the length of a season isn't defined by GW.
Even if it was, the "ageing" isn't hard anyway, because you can continually "put it off" by playing around it, until it ends up being detrimental to your team (similar to lrb4 SPP costs adding to TR, eventually, you would have to retire).
About your points:
No1 - Absolutely. And part of my reasoning that this system is far more suited to a "tiered" set of leagues - if someone plays poorer opposition relentlessly then removing them from that coaching pool, or asking them to play a weaker race is the only way to prevent their team from continued success. This is the sort of thing that breeds resentment in online gaming.
2+ are actually all by intent in my opinion. Although I completely disagree on MB, we'll see I guess. "Skilled" coaches will see their teams get better and better in comparison to others, efficient teams will be necessary (both in terms of player skills on field and also in terms of cost-effective retention of players), careful control of treasury/team is necessary at all times. Racial selection now really counts, and the long-term strategy of just eating losses as a "killer" team to rule the roost later is even less appealing with the lack of PO and the fact you will be struggling to retain key developed positionals just as the team comes into strength.
Effectively it removes a lot of "choice" from bloodbowl, and forces people to play competitively.
I've been trying to be subtle about it the whole way through this thread, but I'll out and out say it now - I don't think the majority of (online) players (FUMBBL and cyanide are included in my thoughts here) actually play this game competitively. NAF tournaments here do not gather a ratio you'd expect if we had a high% competitive users, neither do the "high TV KO" tournaments here, etc etc. Cyanide's ladders are mainly populated by people seeking to avoid concessions, not people thinking they can win the things or with any intent of doing so.
Finally, this system absolutely will not work for an environment where you can pick your opponent. Why in the name of hell would I play eg. Wreckage or Goo if I can play some rookie? It's potentially detrimental to my win%, team composition (on pitch and off-pitch), earnings, etc etc, much more so than anything under CRP or before.
No surprise mr__joshua likes it, the soft-ageing has a similar effect to his "peaking". The peaking card was not particularly popular with BB players at the time, and I don't remember the idea proving too popular with people who bothered to reply to his thread either. |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
One thing seasons does, that I don't necessarily think people have considered, is give teams more longevity. At first it might seem like the opposite. 'My team is getting destroyed every 20 games!' I hear you cry. But teams get destroyed anyway. Destroyed and retired. With this system there's no incentive to retire teams that would take too long to rebuild. If you can just struggle to the end of the season, then great! You get to replace all the injuries, replace all the journeymen with proper players and still most likely keep the few good players you had.
It also adds a bit of authenticity and nostalgia to some very old teams. You can have the legendary Season 2 Fleetfoot's Revenge, or those beastly Season 14 WMDs. Contrary to some earlier comments I don't think it would kill theme teams at all, just change them a bit. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 18:29 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | One thing seasons does, that I don't necessarily think people have considered, is give teams more longevity. At first it might seem like the opposite. 'My team is getting destroyed every 20 games!' I hear you cry. But teams get destroyed anyway. Destroyed and retired. With this system there's no incentive to retire teams that would take too long to rebuild. If you can just struggle to the end of the season, then great! You get to replace all the injuries, replace all the journeymen with proper players and still most likely keep the few good players you had.
It also adds a bit of authenticity and nostalgia to some very old teams. You can have the legendary Season 2 Fleetfoot's Revenge, or those beastly Season 14 WMDs. Contrary to some earlier comments I don't think it would kill theme teams at all, just change them a bit. |
Some of us already make 'business decisions' in game to put the brakes on wipeouts every 20 games. I would absolutely play in a division where this mechanic is used, just not with any team I've previously built to stratospheric heights over the course of years.
It's absolutely going to be a hard sale for coaches like me who find great enduring game value in building teams and the anticipation of skilling up players for some tourney down the line (and playing in ways to try and ensure it while minimizing damage)
It'll also be interesting to see how the new meta affects teams like Nurgle and Chaos since their pathways to SPP gaining players are harder now. It might very well be that Chaos teams need way more time to be robust than any other teams with less CAS SPP being there for the taking. I can see there being severe mismatches for the first few seasons where elves get the skills to pay the bills (and before they are on the line for retirement) while almost everyone else slowly develops on a similar timeline.
Maybe make a new division and see what happens? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 18:32 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | almic85 wrote: |
Ranked and Box are really just there for casual games when/if I have extra time above and beyond my league games.
|
I generally find Box matches way more competitive and less casual than my League matches.
In the Box the skill builds are exploited to the max and the TV is lean. |
You should really test yourself and play in every tourney you can so there's no more competitive 'settling for ties' in your playbook. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 18:39 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
Some of us already make 'business decisions' in game to put the brakes on wipeouts every 20 games. I would absolutely play in a division where this mechanic is used, just not with any team I've previously built to stratospheric heights over the course of years.
It's absolutely going to be a hard sale for coaches like me who find great enduring game value in building teams and the anticipation of skilling up players for some tourney down the line (and playing in ways to try and ensure it while minimizing damage) |
Do you actually have any teams at "stratospheric heights"?
I spotted one team just over 2000. Another around 1920.
How badly would those teams be cut down? |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
