31 coaches online • Server time: 13:15
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:12 Reply with quote Back to top

Nelphine wrote:
... but i won't make new C teams, because I'm waiting to convert over my old teams.


I'm in a similar predicament... I looked at all my B and R teams and if I have a team name that I want to keep, then I wont play them in C until I can convert them.

Therefore I have started new C teams that I dont have a B or R favourite.. and I am starting to run low on teams.

Having said that, if the teams convert with lowish DF, then I will have a dilemma as I believe high DF is the way to go when starting off in 2020....
Mnemon



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:
Mnemon wrote:
I don't really see the point in re-drafting players; I'd just start over. Am I missing anything? Given that there's no doubles, and random players that develop differently - it just seems a little pointless keeping any.

You don't have to delete the team and make a new one, if that's what you mean. You can keep the team name, and keep 1350k for each redraft, which means you can buy all the stuff you want plus keep a few of your best players from previous season


But why keep any from the previous season? Say this team: https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=1061860 - I don't really see the purpose of keeping any of them - given they are, really, nothing special, and will pretty much turn out the same again, plus minus.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:
Yes I know the redraft itself is the problem because it cuts teams which is a painful thing to face
My guess is the idea of it will be worse than the actual process of it


I'm looking at it from the point of view that if you come in one night and want to play a match at 1600-1700, then having had your team cut down to 1350 or lower is really going to stink.

It really stinks because you probably already have teams around 1350. You have to go past 1350 to get to 1600-1700. If you wanted to play at 1350 you could use one of the other teams.

Do we need 10/11 games of grind to get 4/5 games that we want?

Do we need 15 games of grind to be "tournament ready"? And we can't afford any screw ups because we won't be able to get any more games in before the tournament starts. If we go one and done, it is back to start and have to grind all the way back up again.

Sp00keh wrote:

Anyway I was addressing his points about not wanting to play low TV and not wanting to make new teams all the time - he won't have to do either of those things

Do you read the Kzarik quote differently from that?
Also he's created 83 teams which is loads and contradicts some of his own point


No. It doesn't.

In this context 1350 is low TV. It's lower than the TV we want to play at. At least some of the time.

I don't want make new teams either. I barely have time to play the ones I have. But if a new coach wants a game, they won't want to play 1000 vs 1600. So new team.

We've been here for years. What we did years ago is not necessarily what we want to do now.

If we want to try a new race then that requires a new team.
If a team is irrevocably mangled, that may require a new team.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:54 Reply with quote Back to top

for me, the answer is literally i hate 1000tv. redrafting will let me come back higher, so its completely worth it.
Kzarik



Joined: Sep 25, 2016

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:

Anyway I was addressing his points about not wanting to play low TV and not wanting to make new teams all the time - he won't have to do either of those things

Do you read the Kzarik quote differently from that?
Also he's created 83 teams which is loads and contradicts some of his own point


My general complaints:
1) Added TV for retaining players
2) Low TV environment to start(1350 is pretty low)
3) Loss of the thrill of skill roles

My teams:
31 in various competitive divisions, 1 NAF, 18 league teams, 24 SL teams. Plus a handful of retired teams that were beat up. 3 teams that created for leagues that never happened or when I was new to the site.

In short, that's just a coach that likes variety. I don't see any contradiction in stating my preference and then also stating that I dislike working up new teams. A large portion of that is coming up with names and themes. The retiring of players en masse and coming up with new names. Yuck. Really will irritate me every time. Thanks a lot GW.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 02:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Thresh wrote:
Anyone want to start playing bb2016 blackbox with me again then? Very Happy


If there are some set times e.g. 21:00bb or something that suits other time zones... who knows.

There must be some favourite old teams that could do with a run out. Before they pull the plug.

I guess that needs it's own thread.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Thresh



Joined: Apr 12, 2020

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 03:25 Reply with quote Back to top

I dont know if it is just being from USA and never playing a game of tabletop before in my life, but I liked building up a team, big teams, and playing 30+ games with them, having fun.

From my point of view it seems like the bb2020 rules are more suited for tabletop and I miss the old way things worked, being super happy when you get the 1/36 chance to get the +ST player and then being sad when they die. It was all a process and I feel that part of the game is gone now Sad
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 03:30 Reply with quote Back to top

Fumbbl allowed people do play in ways that wouldn't work on tabletop.
It is sad that that is over.

Make Fumbbl great again!
Oh, wait...

Would Sunday be a good day for an activation? Twisted Evil

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

ClayInfinity wrote:
Nelphine wrote:
... but i won't make new C teams, because I'm waiting to convert over my old teams.

I'm in a similar predicament... I looked at all my B and R teams and if I have a team name that I want to keep, then I wont play them in C until I can convert them.

I'm attached to my Box team names as well, I'm waiting for their migration from Box to Competitive.
Nice to see I'm not the only one attached to team names.

Thresh wrote:

From my point of view it seems like the bb2020 rules are more suited for tabletop

And more suited to teams good at low TV, to the point that gets less appealing/more frustrating to play those teams requiring some core skills.
Thresh



Joined: Apr 12, 2020

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2022 - 16:29 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:


Thresh wrote:

From my point of view it seems like the bb2020 rules are more suited for tabletop

And more suited to teams good at low TV, to the point that gets less appealing/more frustrating to play those teams requiring some core skills.


I would agree. Certain elf teams are my favorite teams, and with low rerolls and no dodge skill, sometimes you can just roll all 1s and really cant do anything without it. Part of the fun is winning like this sometimes, but then the rest of the fun is having big elf teams and running into massive chaos teams and still beating them. But now the only option is to have low tv elf teams that you cant have that one cool player who has been around for 50 some games
Garion26



Joined: Nov 28, 2021

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2022 - 14:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Note please to be clear I'm not saying fans of high TV/100's of games teams should 'suck it up.'

I'm asking simply what percent of FUMBBL games/coaches are going to be effected by redraft (which is part of the core rules of BB2020)
You could define that as
%Games over the last year
%of teams that have been played in the last year
etc.

My point is I think (but data would prove) it's a relatively small subset of FUMBBL. Knowing how big would help put this problem in context and help us figure out how to address it.

You certainly could create an 'eternal league' with no redraft mechanism if there are enough coaches interested in that style of play.

The teams with 100's of games but mid range TV possibly wouldn't see as much change (though you'd have to cycle players seasonally) the teams with 100's of game and high TV or folks attached to very old individual players of course would see a change with following the BB2020 rules as written.

I think BB2020 with less badly hurt results and more serious injuries and more niggles staying on the team means less players will survive 100's of games. You are less likely to fire a player with a niggle now then in the past but they'll add up to eventually increase the odds of death or intolerable stat bust.
Prinz11



Joined: Feb 19, 2014

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2022 - 15:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:
"When it's ready". Christer's working on it but he won't burden himself with pressure by committing to a date


Fully with you - no need to any comittment! as just wondering, if there is an idea. Wouldn't dare "expecting" anything!
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2022 - 18:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion26 wrote:
Note please to be clear I'm not saying fans of high TV/100's of games teams should 'suck it up.'


Most people can say it far more politely, but eventually it will always comes down to "suck it up or **** off". That is how the world works but people will moan about it for a while.

Garion26 wrote:

I'm asking simply what percent of FUMBBL games/coaches are going to be effected by redraft (which is part of the core rules of BB2020)
You could define that as
%Games over the last year
%of teams that have been played in the last year
etc.

My point is I think (but data would prove) it's a relatively small subset of FUMBBL. Knowing how big would help put this problem in context and help us figure out how to address it.


It is hard to say. Some will have quit already.

The decision is already made so there is nothing really to address.
People are just moaning for therapeutic reasons.

Garion26 wrote:

You certainly could create an 'eternal league' with no redraft mechanism if there are enough coaches interested in that style of play.


Indeed. But Fumbbl's user base is too small for people to be able to just roll up at any time and get a game fairly quickly, if at all.

We have already had to cut down from separate Ranked and Box divisions to a single Competitive division.

Many people will play in the Competitive division and at lower TV because it is quickest and easiest way to get a game.

Garion26 wrote:

The teams with 100's of games but mid range TV possibly wouldn't see as much change (though you'd have to cycle players seasonally) the teams with 100's of game and high TV or folks attached to very old individual players of course would see a change with following the BB2020 rules as written.


Assuming that those teams weren't hoping to get bigger.

Garion26 wrote:

I think BB2020 with less badly hurt results and more serious injuries and more niggles staying on the team means less players will survive 100's of games. You are less likely to fire a player with a niggle now then in the past but they'll add up to eventually increase the odds of death or intolerable stat bust.


Basically, it is a change to the spirit of how the game can be played. An option removed. A reduction in the role play element.
Fumbbl (and later the computer game) added a dimension to the game that most people probably hadn't had on table top.
The Fumbbl Majors used to be a big deal and create quite a buzz.
They may still be big, but not in the same way. Previously it was big teams and big coaches. Now it will be more about the coaches. Which will suit some people.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 10, 2022 - 00:34 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
The Fumbbl Majors used to be a big deal and create quite a buzz.
They may still be big, but not in the same way. Previously it was big teams and big coaches. Now it will be more about the coaches. Which will suit some people.
Well, "big" just got relative. A lot of teams will come out of their second season well over 1600k, with lots of good players: 30 games is a long time to skill up now that skills are cheaper (26 points to get 3 primary skills, 92 to get 6: for a hitter or baller, getting to legend in 30 games isn't much of a stretch), and now you can guarantee stats or doubles on the players who want them (heck, Goblins get random G skills now faster than they used to get skill rolls). A deep tournament run, and you won't have to make any serious cuts until 35-40 games into your development.

Ancient players with hundreds upon hundreds (or even thousands) of SPP are a thing of the past, maybe, but big teams in majors will still be big, just a bit smaller than they used to be.

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Risi
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 10, 2022 - 01:08 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
30 games is a long time to skill up now that skills are cheaper (26 points to get 3 primary skills, 92 to get 6: for a hitter or baller, getting to legend in 30 games isn't much of a stretch), and now you can guarantee stats or doubles on the players who want them (heck, Goblins get random G skills now faster than they used to get skill rolls).

Skills are cheaper but MVP is totally random and worth 4 SPPs instead of 5, so arguably the old system was faster if you wanted to skill up a specific player or 2 up to 3 skills.
It's true that now skills require fewer SPPs, but it's a bit harder to get them on the positional players you want.
Moreover, you could have a stat+ (or a chosen double) with 6 SPPs and a lucky skill up roll, with the current system is impossible. Even if you can store SPPs to surely get a stat+ roll (and you need at least 18 SPPs) the most likely stats are +AV, +MA, +PA (13 results on 16).

MA is capped at 9, so if you are trying to skill up a MA 9 player by taking stats you risk to waste SPPs in the attempt to get them (because +MA is the best of the most likely stat boosts and using the amount of SPPs required for a stat boost to pick a Secondary skill in case you don't like the stat boost rolled is a waste).
For example, I have a MA 9 Wood Elf Catcher, I don't think I will try to get another stat boost, because:
- MA is capped, so MA could not be taken;
- AV is not worth the SPPs invested to take it;
- PA is not worth the SPPs (I could just use a Thrower);
- AG is overpriced because it doesn't affect passing anymore and Leap has been nerfed; to proxy AG 5 for a single dodge I can just take Break Tackle with a cheaper Secondary skill;
- ST is overpriced and not worth it on a ST 2 Catcher.

Instead, with the old level up system I would have taken +MA and +AG and could have rolled it even at 6 SPPs (cycling the Catcher at 31 SPPs if no stat was rolled). So, even if you can get stat+ almost at will by saving enough SPPs, the players will not be as special.


Last edited by MattDakka on Jan 10, 2022 - 01:51; edited 1 time in total
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic