dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 08, 2014 - 20:21 |
 
|
| koadah wrote: | | Keeping it on the same page confuses people and will give some people the impression that the former BBRC endorse the narrow tiers. |
They don't endorse anything apart for stuff to be tested. It's not a "this is what we, the BBRC, want to be in the new LRB" at all. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 08, 2014 - 21:21 |
|
Hi all,
I look forward to replying to most of this soon.
One thing first:
Dode said:
| Quote: | | They don't endorse anything apart for stuff to be tested. It's not a "this is what we, the BBRC, want to be in the new LRB" at all. |
Depends a bit on what you mean really.
Remember, the basis for CRP+ was a list published by Galak of things he'd have wanted to test for potential inclusion in LRB6, had GW not abruptly ended the vault process.
Remember, the vault had a string of changing versions (PBBL 1 through 12, AFAIK), which ended up being LRB6, which in turn turned into CRP.
The CRP+ list I'm on my site is based on Galaks list, with a few (minor) things added by myself, and some further changes based on how the playtesters reviewed them (such as Galaks new Sneaky Git being a dud). All of these things were discussed with Galak and Ian, so I didn't just add them. And then Galak, Ian and Babs "approved them for testing" in the PBBL sense of the Word. (I didn't just ask them if it was OK that I/someone used them as house rules - why would I need permission for that).
So, they're approved (and preferred - remember, Galak wrote several of these) for further "PBBL"-style testing, and if such would-be testing then panned out, they could have been added to a future LRB/CRP (which will never come - and certainly not with me or the ex-BBRC anywhere near it. Nor will any would-be PBBL-style approved testing for that matter).
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 00:28 |
|
House Rules is absolutely the correct place for any CRP+, NTBB or any other house rule debates and conversation you'd like to have on FUMBBL. So, right place to put this.
I think you and Dode are essentially saying the same thing, just one of you is short and one more wordy, and you each choose a different light cast upon the same thing. Again; this discussion being in House Rules will serve us well if any newcomer came across the discussion, as it reminds them that's all we're talking about, regardless of the positive or negative spin any of us choose to put on them in the hierarchy of house rules. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 07:45 |
|
Hi Pgoo,
for the record: Absolutely - they're house rules.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 08:29 |
|
@Fidius
If both version of the MB is available, then it is possible to make an even bigger killer. That is not the intention I suppose according to the poll in the CPOMB thread. |
_________________
 |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 09:28 |
|
Well, for one thing, the current MB would be for Big Guys only, so only Big Guys could double up. Also, PO would be changed... somehow. A double-MB skillset is about the same chance for removal as MB with PO stun-only (35% vs 32% on AV8), except would require a normal plus a doubles roll (the +AV roll skill is G). Except probably a second doubles, as the go-to skill for most Big Guys would still be Block (the offensive kind). So basically yes, it's a Big Guy buff in the kill-potential department, but only if PO remains the same, which it definitely wouldn't, in my little imaginary world anyway. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 11:57 |
|
Hi Guys,
thanks for taking the time to post your comments. I'll Work my way through them as soon as I can.
As you can already tell from this thread, I can't please everyone with these rules. I'm sure the various suggestions posted by others here would fare no better. I can try to explain why I did what I did, but I won't convince everyone that I chose the objectively speaking best option.
Anyway - Amazons:
Bghandras said
| Quote: | | - Please give me a more insight into the Amazon case, and samples. I thought the blitzer could be 80k when the linewoman are 60k. Your statement says I was wrong, and I would like to understand it. |
I wouldn't say the data are as precise as that. Perhaps it could be OK?
But an NTBB goal, I try to adjust in one direction - i.e. not remove something and give something else (skill swaps excluded), because it is so hard to tell if the total move would actually be in the wrong direction.
But as you can see on the site, I've linked to the Box stats. Amazons do super well in 0-1500TV. But also overly well from 1500-2000 (IIRC). I wouldn't give them anything.
Also, as you have stated yourself elsewhere, one of the main problems with minmax is (early/cheap) access to Blodge. So in this MinMaxy side, I personally wouldn't want to make the Blodgers any cheaper.
Acheron143 said:
| Quote: | | I play as part of a Long term league. Amazon and Norse fall apart by season 3-4. The minor damage just catches up with them over time. |
CRP+ does change the metagame by nerfing Piling On, so those squishy players will take less brutal beatings.
Finally Bghandras said:
| Quote: | | - Would you consider limitless rosters to help stunty teams? |
Yes, it would help. No, I wouldn't consider it. I think the concept is far too outlandish/controversial. I'm alienating enough coaches as is 
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 12:04 |
|
Garion said:
| Quote: | | also you should lay your rosters out in the same format as the rule book, so people don't have to read everything to see what the rosters look like. |
Good idea. I do in fact link to such a pdf at the very top of the page.
But I've now added a link right at the start of the description of the team changes.
Thanks
Martin |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 12:09 |
|
I don't see it? |
_________________
 |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 12:10 |
|
Garion said:
| Quote: | | Also why are you giving chaos a buff when nurgle are even worse at low TV? That doesn't make sense. |
I do explain that on the site, actually.
But either I simply overlooked Nurgle the first time around. Or their stats have dropped further in the 8 months that had passed.
Either way, Nurgle are slated for a short term buff in NTBB2015. And the High Elf skill swap probably wasn't the right one. Those are the 2 changes I'm fairly certain of.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 12:11 |
|
Dropping NW to 100 and RR to 60 gives some actual options to starting roosters and adds a RR to the best/most common one. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 12:13 |
|
+1, also the beast should be 10k cheaper, but then every big guy in the game should be with the possible exception of the kroxigor. |
_________________
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 13:51 |
|
Garion: F5?
It's right next to the headline NTBB Rosters.
As for Nurgle, suggestions are welcome - I have nothing.
The Big trick is to find something for short term that doesn't easily translate into a long term advantage. Even though CPOMB has been nerfed I still dont think a buff to developed Nurgle would be popular.
In that regard an 8 point TV reduction is probably a bit much. I think.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 14:03 |
|
its not, nurgle are really terrible. The only reason they are soo good in this edition at high TV is CPOMb, take that away and they are an average high Tv team at best, also if you just reduce the cost of big guys across the board by 10k then there is no problem there. The BBRC made all big guys far too expensive in this edition. ogres used to be 120k and I never once heard anyone say they were too cheap.
still dont see it, are you talking about on this page - http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB2014x.htm i also dont see a header reading NTBB rosters???
edit: ah never mind, I found it, its on a different page. My God you need to remove BT from tomb guardians. Khemri are a top tier race already imo, I racked up a 15/4/4 Win Percentage 74% in my first attempt with the team ever. which is 5% higher than my average win percentage in CRP which is 69%. They just suffer because of decay and when TGs get Si'd or killed. No need for that at all. Also if you are trying to balance the tiers why have lizardmen got away with it so far? they are one of the strongest low TV teams by a long way. Obviously I dont think you should make changes, but if you are trying to make them all closer together in terms of ability they need a nerf. |
_________________
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 09, 2014 - 15:32 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: |
Anyway - Amazons:
Bghandras said
| Quote: | | - Please give me a more insight into the Amazon case, and samples. I thought the blitzer could be 80k when the linewoman are 60k. Your statement says I was wrong, and I would like to understand it. |
I wouldn't say the data are as precise as that. Perhaps it could be OK?
But an NTBB goal, I try to adjust in one direction - i.e. not remove something and give something else (skill swaps excluded), because it is so hard to tell if the total move would actually be in the wrong direction.
But as you can see on the site, I've linked to the Box stats. Amazons do super well in 0-1500TV. But also overly well from 1500-2000 (IIRC). I wouldn't give them anything.
Also, as you have stated yourself elsewhere, one of the main problems with minmax is (early/cheap) access to Blodge. So in this MinMaxy side, I personally wouldn't want to make the Blodgers any cheaper.
|
Thanks for the answer. Before going into the details let me state, that I don't consider adding or removing any skill on the amazon roster, just guessing the proper price for each positional. I understand it is hard to guess whether you need to make it more expensive by 40k or 90k. Basically I am comparing 2 scenarios:
Scenario1: Amazon linos are 60k, no other change
Scenario2: Amazon linos are 60k, and the blitzer is 80k
The reason I propose is follows:
- It might be enough of a nerf (which might be a false assumption)
- If the gap of the cost is exactly the cost of block, then there is no place to minmax among lino and blitzer. As long as the blitzer costs more than the lino+20k, there is place for minmaxing.
As I said it before you may have the necessary data to prove that you should not give any discount on the blitzers, but from purely minmax preventive point of view I could see the advantage of the 80k-costed blitzers.
Food for thought
From a purely mechanical point of view increasing the reroll to 60k would increase the roster by similar amount as the difference the blitzers would make (as most non-minmaxed amazon rosters present similar number of rerolls as blitzers). So if you are right, and no discount is needed on blitzers, and the rosters should be more expensive by 70-90k, then I propose the following:
lino 60
blitzer 80
reroll 60 |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Record the length of...
Search
