SeriliKirico
Joined: Sep 13, 2017
|
 Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 14:43 |
 
|
| Nelphine wrote: | | SeriliKirico wrote: | | then by giving more options to concede match that is already beyond saving. |
to be very clear, this is the part i disagree with.
VERY few games are ever beyond saving. they simply aren't, and i've not only won games where i was heavily outcas'd, i've saved drives where i've only had 2-3 players left on the pitch. |
May be you are just THAT good. Or may be you are talking of exceptionally rare cases, like 1 out of 10 such failed matches (and I would definitely be interested in seeing these games, so if you'll be able to share some links to replays, I would be grateful).
The thing is, most others just aren't that good. And it's hardly a solution to put them through 30-40 minutes of suffering with 0 chances to change anything at all. This always should be the coach's choice. If they feel like it, then fine.
We could argue endlessly about who has more rights: the coach who can't realistically play the game at that point (minding their current skill), or their opponent who would like to still continue beating them and scoring more TDs. As seen in case of Cyanide's game today, the reality is people will just concede, or fake DC - or when punished for those, will just leave the game running and switch to something else, making the other coach to wait for all the timers. It may not be a problem at fumbbl due to it being a fairly narrow community, but for a bigger platforms it will always be, and they'll have to play ball, as they just won't be able to force people play the games they don't like, not to mention by doing so they will be losing customers both directly, and indirectly (due to low online and long queus). |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 14:52 |
|
| SeriliKirico wrote: |
The thing is, most others just aren't that good. And it's hardly a solution to put them through 30-40 minutes of suffering with 0 chances to change anything at all. This always should be the coach's choice. If they feel like it, then fine. |
This is why I mentioned that the teams are like difficulty ratings. Unfortunately (and one of my big issues with GW) is that GW doesn't explain this or even express it as a concern. Their tier ratings are wildly off the mark for some teams, and even if they were completely correct, they don't discuss the mentality of how to play different playstyles at all. It's really really important, and arguably the biggest factor.
So, to me, as much as I'm saying 'its almost never lost', I completely understand and agree that no one is explaining to these new coaches what kind of mindset is needed.
Unfortunately, the analogy to chess is a good one - but instead of looking at chess players who continue playing, and saying 'yeah, they can just knock their king over and then they go on to the next game' you should be looking at 'all people'. How many people try chess, and go 'nope, thats not for me at all'? This is the same as trying different teams in blood bowl. Most people, simply aren't going to be effective with a lot of teams - but this isn't explained, and so you get this sense 'huh, i like blood bowl, i liked playing against my friend in this game that didn't have high variance on dice, so the game must be for me in all its variations' and this simply isn't true. It IS a very high variance game - D6s are notorious for this - and some teams make this even worse.
And this mindset requirement isn't discussed - even the incredibly high dice variance isn't discussed.
Because if you discuss either of those, you will turn a lot of people off before they even start.
I wish GW would make this way more obvious, but I don't think they will - if you pay to play one game, GW already has as much out of you as they have out of most long term gamers, so scaring you off after you've purchased is fine, but scaring you off prior to purchase is bad. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 14:57 |
|
And then to finish the chess comparison:
you wouldn't change the rules of chess because of all the people who don't play.
Changing how bench or cas work as you are suggesting, would be the same type of change - you don't change the rules for the people who don't want to play that game (or gamestyle).
(which is not to say bench or cas are perfect today, but you don't change them for those people - you go to someone like Carthage, someone who likes the playstyle, and you go to someone who loves playing against those teams, and you figure out with them, who love the playstyle (as the coach and as the opponent) and you make changes based on them) |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 15:08 |
|
This kind of "extra linos to compensate excessive CAS" (which has been proposed before) would not really be viable because it would generate an unfair advantage especially for some races vs others (and some can really be dominant: thinks to a UW team with stat freak Gutter, Blitzer and Thrower who can always put 11 players in the pitch!!!)
Someone can argue that the introduction of the new rule of PA created an unfair DIS-advantage vs Elf w/r CRP2016 ruleset. I can counter-argue that before BB2020 having Elf making 10 passages per game farming skills at speed light was boring (and unfair) as watching a game with 12 CAS in one sense only. But this is my personal opinion and i think we had rivers of inks post flooding forum on that subject.
Anyway it is as it is "House Rules" in FUMBBL competitive are usually not implemented: the site follow - very precisely - G&W ruleset. You can always write to BloodBowlFAQ@gwplc.com to ask them to implement this ruleset proposal in the next FAQ od Designer's Commentary.
Till this is the BB2020 ruleset the only solution as someone states before is to play Leagues where this mechanism is already implemented. |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
SeriliKirico
Joined: Sep 13, 2017
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 16:41 |
|
| RDaneel wrote: |
Someone can argue that the introduction of the new rule of PA created an unfair DIS-advantage vs Elf w/r CRP2016 ruleset. I can counter-argue that before BB2020 having Elf making 10 passages per game farming skills at speed light was boring (and unfair) as watching a game with 12 CAS in one sense only. But this is my personal opinion and i think we had rivers of inks post flooding forum on that subject.
|
That never was an issue, as it was countered by their short lifespan. They grow fast and die fast. Also cost a fortune, so you actually paid for all these benefits by bloated TV. Now you still pay those money, but it's not clear what for, because all your players got severely nerfed.
Today I've played a perfect game showed how exactly it affected agi teams. A typical game where I accumulated some attrition at the start of the 2nd half, it was my offense. They pressed me hard, using number advantage. These were exactly the moments where previously elves could utilize their expensive statline and better players to counter it. Nope, it didn't work due to these nerfs. First, my thrower failed long pass with wildly inaccurate (the stupidest of all the nerfes which definitely must not be present on the dedicated thrower piece) - it was the only chance to score in that situation. Then when I got a second chance to score, when my catcher was lucky enough to steal the ball under their noses - I had to throw with the catcher, thrower was down. And it failed, despite being a mere Quick pass.
On average, previously I would score at least in one of these situations. Not now, nope. Those who say "it's not an issue if you play right" forget that elves are made that expensive because they are supposed to still have good chances to win when game didn't go well too. Otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against a bash team of an equal TV. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 16:57 |
|
| SeriliKirico wrote: | | koadah wrote: | Grumble, grumble. 
Elves should be able to win when they are down players.
The real solution is to un-nerf them.
That or just continue playing the old rules.  |
This seems to be one of the main confrontation points between old and newer players. Also, I believe it's the one that hampers the popularization of the game. The old folk are accustomed to design issues of the vanila game. The new ones just won't accept it, as the idea of a game that is a chore averts them. This is one of the reasons "old-school" MMORPG have mostly died out, and substituted with the ones that minimize the chores component. The game must be fun to play all the time, or it's a pass - this is the new rule.
So if at some point you have to sit through it for half an hour, not actually playing - this is won't be accepted, just won't. Using the Cyanide's game as example, what seem to happen is people either abuse concede option, or even resort to time griefing (now that concedes are harshly punished). And I beleive if they'll decide to punish it even more, quite a lot of people will just leave. I believe this may be one of the main reasons BB isn't that appealing to the general audience. |
You're dead right! 
Assuming that you didn't really mean "hampers".
I'll stick mostly to the old rules at least until we get the next ones.
We'll also continue to call each other "coaches".  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Carabor
Joined: Jan 25, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:02 |
|
| SeriliKirico wrote: | | Quite honestly, I didn't expect to find much of understanding here. IMO, the answer to what is the future of BB will be more probably given at Cyanide's platform. The decisions they'll make [...] |
And here is a key thing, where you're completely "wrong".
Blood Bowl is no computer game. Cyanide has nothing to do with rules, decisions, directions and so on.
Blood Bowl is an expert board game made by Games Workshop (some reference it therefore also as a "tabletop game", which is not correct by theory). And it's nearly 40 years old.
Fumbbl and Cyanide just digitalized it (which is fine and helped keeping it alive in the years Games Workshop didn't support it).
Decisive is the real life Blood Bowl, their tournaments and the player base that travels from week to week. The NAF and a rules committee of board gamers (now inactive due to the publisher Games Workshop activity) developed the rules. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:05 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:09 |
|
| Carabor wrote: | | SeriliKirico wrote: | | Quite honestly, I didn't expect to find much of understanding here. IMO, the answer to what is the future of BB will be more probably given at Cyanide's platform. The decisions they'll make [...] |
And here is a key thing, where you're completely "wrong".
Blood Bowl is no computer game. Cyanide has nothing to do with rules, decisions, directions and so on.
Blood Bowl is an expert board game made by Games Workshop (some reference it therefore also as a "tabletop game", which is not correct by theory). And it's nearly 40 years old.
Fumbbl and Cyanide just digitalized it (which is fine and helped keeping it alive in the years Games Workshop didn't support it).
Decisive is the real life Blood Bowl, their tournaments and the player base that travels from week to week. The NAF and a rules committee of board gamers (now inactive due to the publisher Games Workshop activity) developed the rules. |
I would be very surprised if complaints from Cyanide coaches have not affected the rules.
I can't think why else the current set of rules would be so awful. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:13 |
|
Although passing is a plan B for Elves too, it's true they have been nerfed in that aspect.
They should all either get +1 to their PA (barring the Throwers) or being slightly cheaper (because Agility is not used anymore to throw the ball).
Something like -5k from each Elf's cost should be right.
As an aside, unless really desperate, I don't risk Long Passes with Elves. I try to make only Quick or Short Passes with Accurate, so they both are 2+. 3+ is already too risky in my book. Also, there is no risk of Wildly Inaccurate. |
|
|
Jan-Erik
Joined: Apr 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:21 |
|
You can just come out and say that your issue is with concession rules if that's what you really want to say. I would suggest picking up another hobby if you find yourself unable to focus for an hour at a time. |
|
|
SeriliKirico
Joined: Sep 13, 2017
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:42 |
|
| Carabor wrote: | | SeriliKirico wrote: | | Quite honestly, I didn't expect to find much of understanding here. IMO, the answer to what is the future of BB will be more probably given at Cyanide's platform. The decisions they'll make [...] |
Blood Bowl is an expert board game made by Games Workshop (some reference it therefore also as a "tabletop game", which is not correct by theory). And it's nearly 40 years old.
Fumbbl and Cyanide just digitalized it (which is fine and helped keeping it alive in the years Games Workshop didn't support it).
|
This is where you may mistaken, actually. Interesting things have happened: Cyanide's aging house rules used in BB2 were very close to what redraft does today. That was long before new rules were published. Cyanide's game functions as official digital platform for everything BloodBowl up to the point they now distribute tickets to world cup (even in private leagues there) and host NAF-approved championships.
Basically it's an ideal playground to test ideas and collect metrics for many years of play. A testbed. It' just an assumption, but I believe it's already used as such and they communicate with GW about it. |
Last edited by SeriliKirico on %b %18, %2024 - %17:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Carabor
Joined: Jan 25, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 17:46 |
|
Second this, Jan-Erik.
@koadah:
"complaints from Cyanide coaches" affect the conditions or terms for the BB3 environment (i.e. ladder function and those stuff) - that's for sure.
Fumbbl has it's own terms also, of course.
But all that has nothing to do with the rules of the board game Blood Bowl - and therefore nothing to do with the wishes and house rules of thread opener, honestly.
@SeriliKirico:
Of course they all look at each other - by nature. And of course these "fast digital things" are playgrounds (whether they are ideal or not).
But your point of view is way too focussed on this digital side of stuff.
My 2 cents. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 18:13 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Nelphine wrote: | | bah, my wood elves are purely 2020. i disagree that they were hurt - again, they had specific playstyles hurt, but that doesn't mean the teams ability to win significantly changed |
I doubt very much that elf win rates are where they were in the previous versions. |
Maybe, but thats not due to the teams ability to win changing, thats from coachrs not adapting and playing the running game 100% of the time (which us what my 2016 pro elves did, and so they werent impacted in their win rates). |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2024 - 18:17 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Although passing is a plan B for Elves too, it's true they have been nerfed in that aspect.
They should all either get +1 to their PA (barring the Throwers) or being slightly cheaper (because Agility is not used anymore to throw the ball).
Something like -5k from each Elf's cost should be right.
|
Nah elves were underpriced previously. I dont like it, but i have to admit it appears thry are no longer undepriced. (Of course other teams like orcs are underpriced now, which makes elves appear worse, but we have to ignote those outliers when trying to determine where elces are today.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
