happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 17:30 |
 
|
Great first post Christer, I am glad to see this being thoughtfully considered.
A word on maths, there is a much more detailed breakdown here, though I haven't used it yet or double checked it - but I noticed it a while ago and have been meaning to look at it a bit more. It isn't formatted particularly well for this discussion, but oh well.
On the changes Christer proposed: I think it would be an overall improvement over what is currently in place, and it would be easy to do. If the option is to take those changes or do nothing, I fully endorse both client changes Christer proposes.
I have played a number games using those changes (and the fouling changes as well) in various leagues, including some using the NTBB rules in their league (via the PBeM client). I haven't played enough to have firm opinions of the full NTBB rules, but so far my suspicions that they are interesting but I don't particularly care for them as a package have been confirmed. With regard to the three options that have been talked about here, I don't think any of them change the way I would build teams very much if at all. It is very likely that I would play more high TV box though. I have taken a long break from my box frogs because of frustration, and I would be happy to try them and other things higher up if I thought there would be less frustration dealing with folks who didn't even go after the ball but could still win (and I suspect these changes would help).
1. Claw not stacking assuming #2 is implemented just means claw doesn't stack with MB, that's it. So you are breaking dwarf armor rolling an 8 instead of 7 (claw + MB) and you use the MB for the injury roll which you could PO... Just shooting from the hip, but I would think maybe that makes higher TV battles between chaos and dwarves much more interesting. Does it make dwarves and orcs too good? Possible, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest Jimmy.
2. This is a good change. Nerfing PO is the big one, the one that I want to see. I don't have math in shape to post, but IIRC it didn't actually change the CAS percentages that much going from PO on armor only to PO on injury only, though that depends on what stacks with what also. Personally, I don't know if I would prefer it to see PO on armor only or injury only, but I don't care about the math (in this case) - I am just wondering which makes for a more interesting game. The choice to PO on someone who is stunned is boring - unless you really need your guy to be up you do it. On the other hand, if you can PO on armor, then you are going to see a lot more people on the ground to stay safe. If you can't PO unless you break then you have more interesting choices regarding who to blitz - can you make it back to safety if you don't break armor? Or do you expose your killer to attack because you can't PO to keep him safe? I'm not sure which of these is best, but I am fully behind either one.
3. I don't really like the fouling change, only because I think it encourages the worst (from a tactical point of view) kind of fouls by making the random 0-1 assist fouls quite a bit better, while having little impact on gang fouls. I think it's would help folks who foul every turn on principle more than elves fighting against bash, though it would help them a bit I guess.
My experience with all three of these changes is that they really don't change the game very much. That could be because I didn't play enough games, or because I just don't play in a way that is destroyed by any of these changes. But I can see some teams that really wouldn't like these changes. And, amazingly enough, those are the very teams that I find least fun to play against.
Finally, I really, really like the idea of a small change in the box. We have a lot of games played. Everyone has their own opinions about the box. But if a tweak like this is made, there will be thousands of games played soon enough and then we can look back and see what, if anything, actually changed. IF a new BBRC (or the NAF or whatever) is ever going to fix the rules for real, one would hope they would look to data like this as a starting point. I feel strongly that a focused tweak like this is very good for the long term health of the BB community.
******
So that is my take on what's been proposed. I would like to offer a different proposed change, feel free to ignore it. 
I think rather than #2 (and maybe #1 isn't needed either), changing PO to be a turnover on doubles would leave the core rules in place but create a fascinating incentive to not spam clawpomb. This is *not* ejecting the player, it just ends the turn. Think of the tactical choices that result: Do you blitz and PO on the first action of a turn? Do you PO on some block before you blitz? How many players do you want to have PO? This gives players many interesting choices about how they use and deal with PO without nerfing the *ability* to take down dwarves and orcs but likely putting an early end to many turns of "I block all the dudes, then I end turn". CPOMB is still deadly but suddenly not mindless and spamming it gets nerfed hard. |
Last edited by happygrue on %b %15, %2013 - %18:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 17:43 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Roland wrote: | | Chainchoker wrote: | Thank you for your post Christer - for both acknowledging the problem, as well as suggesting some solutions.
However, making any changes to BlackBox will always anger people. My solution?
Why not make a division where ALL of Plasmoid's suggestions are implemented (including roster changes). I anticipate that this new division will soon become the most popular, because you will be able to play sub-optimal teams have a better chance of winning. |
This |
That will be the [L]eague division. Come and try it. It's great. |
I'm there already and no NTBB rosters yet... |
I think you will see them there before you see them in another division.
| licker wrote: |
Koadah: L does not have an automatic scheduler. |
Now there is an idea. 
Probably a better idea than creating a second Black Box division. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 18:22 |
|
My first thought is that if one wants to maintain FUMBBL Blackbox brand prestige in its current level (About 20% of world's BB?) and apply house rules, one should consider the full NTBB.
Applying full NTBB keeps ruling situation at status quo: changers would need to appeal to Plasmoid et al, not to site management. Also, this would maintain the view that the environment keeps rules near canon. Besides, the other changes are not that big - Titchy et cetera. Ignoring roster changes would still be an option. |
|
|
Espionage
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 18:45 |
|
I'm very happy to see a change. It's not exactly the one I wanted, but I like it more than the status quo.
Are you giving any thought to Selfself's 50% skill choices metioned in the recent very long thread? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 18:49 |
|
A house rule to make a division work! Excellent! Let's hope it does what is intended.
Will it be made clear in divisional descriptions or somewhere else prominent about this? There will likely be newbies who get confused by such disparities. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 18:54 |
|
How about making a new MM division that would be the default for making new teams.
MB/PO/Claw/DP wouldn't work and all injuries would be badly hurts.
Wins would not affect CR and teams from there couldn't enter tournaments. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 19:08 |
|
@Dode; yes of course.
New divisions are not an option, please stick to the topic of this thread. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 19:15 |
|
I'm for #1 and #2 as you have them, and against PO on AV only. If I were to suggest an alternative, I'd tie TV to player rank (specifically +10k each at 31, 51, and 76).
I've played with just those exact two rules changes Christer proposed (and the +1 foul, though by other means: you could assist yourself), and I really like them. PO injury only sounds good: cuts down on the rook-farming, but leaves PO viable. If you made PO armor only, then either it would only be seen with Claw, or if you had Claw not stack, it would become a late vanity skill at best (lots of times, you'd decline to PO the AV roll anyway). So in the interest of not re-breaking* the game in the interest of fixing it, I'd strongly recommend #2 as you have it as opposed to the other way around.
I agree with HM, it's unfortunate that we have to change the BB rules to reach this objective: in a perfect world, a formula fix would be preferable. But this really is just a fix to CRP, not a radical departure.
* The thing that keeps me out of Box is that it's significantly farther than Ranked from the game I know: it's easy to make this worse with house rules. That's why I like Christer's proposal so much, I have firsthand experience that it's not game-breaking. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 19:30 |
|
I have long held the opinion that PO is a silly skill. It devolves positional play and accelerates player removal by too great a margin. It also lends the killers a great hiding place from their fellow killers: the ground.
Remove PO and nearly all the bashy problems go away. Claw+MB is a good counter to AV9 teams, but not an insurmountable one. It also makes the coding of the rules changes very simple. It's just another skill that doesn't get used. It could even be implemented site-side, by not uploading PO when games are created. |
_________________
Author of Firehurler (Twinborn Trilogy Book #1), Aethersmith (Book #2), Sourcethief (Book #3) |
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 19:32 |
|
One practical question: What happens when box and ranked teams meet in the FC? |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 20:21 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | I have long held the opinion that PO is a silly skill. It devolves positional play and accelerates player removal by too great a margin. It also lends the killers a great hiding place from their fellow killers: the ground.
Remove PO and nearly all the bashy problems go away. Claw+MB is a good counter to AV9 teams, but not an insurmountable one. It also makes the coding of the rules changes very simple. It's just another skill that doesn't get used. It could even be implemented site-side, by not uploading PO when games are created. |
Not sure if it is for this topic, but I would prefer this, as it eliminated the POMB problem as well. It also has an armor9 equalizer, which I like. I would not mind to buff fouling if attrition is too little after the elimination of pomb. (Like a sel assisting +1.) |
|
|
Nickpcr
Joined: Oct 28, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 20:24 |
|
Much as I dislike clawpomb and think it's broken, I whole-heartedly vote against any rule change. Not using proper CRP cheapens the whole experience. If you want to find a better way of matching teams that's one thing, but deviating from official BB rules is a one-way ticket to FUMBL obscurity IMO. |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 20:31 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | maysrill wrote: | I have long held the opinion that PO is a silly skill. It devolves positional play and accelerates player removal by too great a margin. It also lends the killers a great hiding place from their fellow killers: the ground.
Remove PO and nearly all the bashy problems go away. Claw+MB is a good counter to AV9 teams, but not an insurmountable one. It also makes the coding of the rules changes very simple. It's just another skill that doesn't get used. It could even be implemented site-side, by not uploading PO when games are created. |
Not sure if it is for this topic, but I would prefer this, as it eliminated the POMB problem as well. It also has an armor9 equalizer, which I like. I would not mind to buff fouling if attrition is too little after the elimination of pomb. (Like a sel assisting +1.) |
I also think it's a better suggestion.
I would prefer anything which does not nerf claw or at least less, than the suggestion of plasmoid.
I mean if claw can stack with nothing it's just completely useless, and the result will be the reign of AV9 teams. As there are currently a ton of dwarves and orcs in Box, I can't imagine how it would be after the change 
I think claw should at least stack with PO OR MB.
But I'm perfectly fine too with the suggestion above: just remove PO, and no nerf for claw |
|
|
MisterFurious
Joined: Aug 11, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 20:37 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | I have long held the opinion that PO is a silly skill. It devolves positional play and accelerates player removal by too great a margin. It also lends the killers a great hiding place from their fellow killers: the ground.
Remove PO and nearly all the bashy problems go away. Claw+MB is a good counter to AV9 teams, but not an insurmountable one. It also makes the coding of the rules changes very simple. It's just another skill that doesn't get used. It could even be implemented site-side, by not uploading PO when games are created. |
That was my suggestion on TFF a long time ago. People were coming up with all of these complicated tweaks and changes to Piling On and I said 'Why not just nip the whole problem in the bud and just get rid of the skill?'. It really is the source of the problem. Like you said, Claw+MB is good, but it's not super overpowered or anything. I was going to suggest it here again, but then I read Happygrue's idea and that sounds like a great idea, too. Make Piling On risky like fouling. If you roll a double, it's a turn over. The fluff reason is your guy landed bad and stunned himself or something. I think either option would be better than fiddly tweaks and complicated reworks. |
|
|
OenarLod
Joined: Jan 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 20:45 |
|
| Nickpcr wrote: | | Much as I dislike clawpomb and think it's broken, I whole-heartedly vote against any rule change. Not using proper CRP cheapens the whole experience. If you want to find a better way of matching teams that's one thing, but deviating from official BB rules is a one-way ticket to FUMBL obscurity IMO. |
Despite being an hard-core blackbox human player
Despite my teams having suffered a lot from clawpomber (both min-maxed and fully developed)
this one!
+1 |
_________________
Join the Human League Premiership! |
|
|
|
| |
145 League and Tourn...
Search
