 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 26, 2003 - 02:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
You can, and you do.
But what i'm really saying here is that you don't have to take out *all* the players. Sure, it helps to take a couple out, but if you as a bashing coach remember that the main objective is TDs and not CAS, you can win with dwarves quite easily under the current rules.
I was recently beaten in playoffs with wood elves by dwarves. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
zeuzism |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 - 05:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Posts: 42
Status: Offline
|
|
You can. I was exaggarating (how do you write that?! nasty word) and you are right. You can win even if you don't take out all the opposition and yes even as a Dwarf you have to concentrate on the ball to win and I do (both the ball and winning stuff).
My posting is not about the fact that I think it to be unfair. I think Dwarfs are still quite ok, and so are Orcs and Undead and even Chaos if they have enough SPP's in the long run.
I think it to be less fun. I enjoy the bashing and I enjoy the scoring, both. But it seems to me that the bashing stuff is getting less and less. And that is not an improvement IMO.
Just look at the cover of the Death Zone Rules:
Jordell bashing a Beastman; a Raging Bull (completely Wild, not a statue); a Goblin with a Chainsaw. And yes, the Ball and he is going to throw it! That is how I see BB. A lot of complete senseless stuf, and by the way: it is a sport to.
I think the sport part is taken to seriously. And the senseless part isn't. That is the whole reason I post this way. And yes sometimes I post unbalanced opinions. And you put me in my place over and over again.
May I ask you (and the rest of the BB community) this one thing:
Can you not find any truth in my words? Do you really think BB is supposed to be a sport, and by that smooth and fair? Or do you agree at least a bit and think: hey (!) bring on some more freaky stuff and lets not care about the balancing part.
That's all. Thanks for considering.
Sanne |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 - 06:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
In my experience, bashing is not less present now than it was before. On the opposite, it's more present. In my opinion, the current rules, with less money to replace dead players, slower progression for everyone, and many other changes, favors bashing teams more than it did in 3rd edition. As a result, more people around here (myself included) are taking bashing teams, and as a result there's more bashing going on now than there was before.
As for your other point. Yes, some people prefer the craziness. You're not alone. But the current trend is for balancing the game and making it more strategic, and i, like the majority of coaches, am all for that.
Also, with the tournament scene getting bigger every year, balance also becomes more of an issue than ever before. So don't expect the trend to turn around anytime soon.
Personally, i don't give a damn about miniatures. And the fluff is nice, but it's just a nice addition, not something that's really needed. It's the strategy that attracts me, and it's the strategy that drives me. I couldn't be happier with the direction the game has taken recently.
Now this doesn't necessarily mean that the game needs to be nerfed down. Once everything is cleaned up, we can add more stuff to the game (more teams, more skills, new stuff like on-pitch spellcasters etc.) But balance always needs to be the primary concern.
A good game is one that involves lots of strategy. The perfect game is one that's balanced as well. That's why i loved Starcraft and that's why i love Blood Bowl too. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2003 - 05:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 02:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie69 wrote: As for your other point. Yes, some people prefer the craziness. You're not alone. But the current trend is for balancing the game and making it more strategic, and i, like the majority of coaches, am all for that.
I wonder if it is the majority of coaches. Certainly the majority of vocal coaches on the boards. I prefer more randomness. If every change to the game which makes it more "balanced" also makes things more restrictive then soon our league at least will revert to a modified 3rd Ed, which I don't want...
Zombie69 wrote:
Also, with the tournament scene getting bigger every year, balance also becomes more of an issue than ever before. So don't expect the trend to turn around anytime soon.
I don't understand the reason why this "trend" needs to continue just because of tournaments! 1) Why can't it STOP! How much more "balancing" of the core rules do we need!! And whats wrong with having a limited set of rules for tournaments - just go over to a warhammer board and look at the "COMP" arguments. We allow up to 4 stars and 4 big guys in leagues, but only 1 in a tournament...
Zombie69 wrote:
Personally, i don't give a damn about miniatures. And the fluff is nice, but it's just a nice addition, not something that's really needed. It's the strategy that attracts me, and it's the strategy that drives me. I couldn't be happier with the direction the game has taken recently. love Blood Bowl too.[/quote]
I respect your opinion but I really wonder why you feel like this. To me the miniatures and fluff are key to enjoying the game. Without that it would be about as intereting as Ludo...
But then I am what you would term a "fluff" gamer.
I think there needs to be a balance between the strategic elements and the fluff/background of the game - in the rules - or risk losing a large portion of the Blood Bowl community. |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 02:41 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I think the latest rules changes have been more in the direction of game balance, and for a large part people who haven't been happy with them have used the fluff argument as an excuse to hide the fact they have issues with their team being degraded/balanced slightly.
When you play BB, do you get your biggest kick from sitting have a giggle when inane, random events occur or a freak series of events result in comedy moments? Or do you get your kick from playing a sporting, fair game against a friendly opponent then kick back in the pub later and lament your bad luck?
For me, the most important thing about BB is not the background, the models or even the complexity of strategy needed - it's about having fun, with a mate or a stranger. If you and your mates can only have fun with randomness then use the special play cards. However, I've never yet seen a "randomness dominated" game that has been remotely as fun as a tense, balanced game where it goes right down to the wire. Not wanting to seem insulting, but random "wacky" games, although alright for a one-off, have little lasting effect on me. Once it's finished, I'm looking for something else to do. But a tense, close tournament game, or even a thrashing/walkover leave a bigger imprint on me and I'm thinking about them for hours or even days afterwards - take Spiky and CamCarnage. I was thinking about the match I played against Dwarfcoach for DAYS! *must not leave guys within frenzy range of the crowd*
While the fluff is fun, and painted miniatures really bring the game to life the best thing about BB is the challenge. Play cards if you want randomness  |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 02:49 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Re-reading that, I think my last remark was a little TOO flippant. However, the point is we must have a solid, stable core of balanced rules to which we add "fun random" stuff too so people can use what they like. As it stands, the core stuff is pretty good but not there yet hence the BBRC keeps going.
As we progress, I can see the BBRC mainly reviewing house rules submitted by third parties to decide whether or not they should be added as optional extras. Eventually, the Annual will be twice the size of the rulebook which is a good thing - although we will have a "tournament base" we can add other things to customise it to our tastes. |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
I really think you are overstating the randomness of the game - even in vanilla 3rd Ed.
I'm not talking about games where you just set up and see what happens - no control at all. Adding randomness - cards, secret weapons etc does not necessarily make the game "unbalanced" or dominated by those random events.
In fact games without cards and other "wacky" insertions can infact all hinge on one dice roll - just like any other game of Blood Bowl. Its still luck when it comes down to it.
There does seem to be a fundimental (why do I keep picking words I can't spell?) misunderstanding about the nature of the game. It will always be a game of strategy - a game where to win you have to be able to play in a way which reduces the impact of unforseen and uncontrollable events.
Thats it!
Introducing more or taking away "luck" elements doesn't actually change the dynamic all that much - and trust me I've seen it after 8 years of running leagues! No matter how the rules come and go the same people always end up winning (not usually me  ). Regardless of cards, rules version (4th ed - eek!)...
The ONLY time when this goes awry is when something is overpowered in comparison to everything else - say for example a rule allowing gutter runners to start with ST5 and AG5 (obviously daft!)
Once these anomalies are "fixed" (what I think the BBRC ought to be about and for the most part it is doing a good job) the game *IS* actually balanced...
It has NOTHING to do with using "the fluff argument as an excuse to hide the fact they have issues with their team being degraded/balanced slightly" at all. There is no need to cover it up. I don't like rules (ageing etc) which arbitrarily make all that careful and enjoyable team building much harder and less rewarding. Team building is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game for many - and moving more and more skills to traits makes this process less enjoyable... And its not about building an "uber-team" either.
It comes down to game enjoyment. I'm talking long term big leagues here, not tournaments. Where tournaments are concerned I'm all for these changes.
I don't really know how to explain it any better - but I think people are missing the point when they read posts complaining about "nerfing" etc. Its not powergaming! |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 03:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: Re-reading that, I think my last remark was a little TOO flippant. However, the point is we must have a solid, stable core of balanced rules to which we add "fun random" stuff too so people can use what they like. As it stands, the core stuff is pretty good but not there yet hence the BBRC keeps going.
As we progress, I can see the BBRC mainly reviewing house rules submitted by third parties to decide whether or not they should be added as optional extras. Eventually, the Annual will be twice the size of the rulebook which is a good thing - although we will have a "tournament base" we can add other things to customise it to our tastes.
Damn it I agree with that!  
I think we need to distinguish between TOURNAMENTS and LEAGUES - after all I always think of the new rules in the context of our 29 member 7 year old league, rather than tournaments |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zeuzism |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 03:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Posts: 42
Status: Offline
|
|
Talking about balancing: I think that the old rules with the old special play cards worked quite well balancing the game out. with these rules you could try to take on a far better (in TR) opponent and still stand a decent chance of winning, or at least not plummeting down TR-wise. because you had some extra mvp's and money from the cards. now with the new handicap table I would think twice about chalenging a high TR opponent, it's suicidal. I did it a few times and I lost a lot of games and money and players. the fun was you could actually win if you used the randomness in your favour, that is also good coaching, being prepared for dirty tricks and random events and it has nothing to do with powergaming.
i agree with noodle, whatever rules you use, always the same people seem to win and the same loose.
on top of that I do not like the ageing rules, they are a patch for a rule that worked fine in the first place: fouling. Take the IGMEOY out and the ageing rules as well. there is your balance, no more STR5 wardancers, just bash them to the ground (using tackle and dauntless and frenzy) and foul them to oblivion.
Sanne |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 03:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
zeusism - I agree with you for the most part...
People must remember that all changes to the rules must be taken in context. If you change one thing you may have to change another to "re-balance"
EG:
We started in 97 using vanilla 3rd ed:
- result average 10+ casualties per game - unhappy players
Introduced Sigurds rule
- result average 5 casualties per game
- result spiralling team ratings
Using LRB on its own (started 2002)
- result = general boredom - after all we'd done it all before...
Re - introduced star players, optional teams, cards
- result = star players take over game
- result = cards too powerful at higher team ratings
Make star players unable to use rerolls....
Make card handicap based on PERCENTAGE difference of TR
- result
So you see each change has to be balanced. For example we have introduced a FORM of ageing which is characterful and teams now "peak" at about 250 - 300 which is what we wanted...
The IGMEOY rule is used by our league, but if you can't re-roll fouls the old system would work fine - but you MUST use sigurds rule in this case.
Special Play cards are in no way as lethal as people once feared. But seven years of playing with them makes you very aware of their strengths and weaknesses...
The distinction is between league and tourny play. I agree with Indigo:
Core rules = how the game is played, team progression TOURNAMENT RULES
- Optional rules = Kicking rules, secret weapons, extra teams, stadiums, ENHANCED PROGRESSION/LOANS etc -why not put star players in here?
- Fluff stuff |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 07:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
zeuzism wrote: Talking about balancing: I think that the old rules with the old special play cards worked quite well balancing the game out. with these rules you could try to take on a far better (in TR) opponent and still stand a decent chance of winning, or at least not plummeting down TR-wise.
Actually, things were very unbalanced back then, because a team that was 11 or 31 TR lower than its opponent had a much bigger chance of winning than the other one, which doesn't make sense at all. The cards were way too powerful. Not to mention when you rolled a 1 for cards and the opponent rolled a 6.
zeuzism wrote: i agree with noodle, whatever rules you use, always the same people seem to win and the same loose.
Of course! That would still be the case even if the game was 99.9% luck and 0.1% strategy. But the more luck is involved, the less frequent it will be for the best coach to win, even if on average the best coach will win more no matter how much luck is involved. Hope this was clear, not sure it was, but it's a very important point you have to understand.
zeuzism wrote: on top of that I do not like the ageing rules, they are a patch for a rule that worked fine in the first place: fouling. Take the IGMEOY out and the ageing rules as well. there is your balance, no more STR5 wardancers, just bash them to the ground (using tackle and dauntless and frenzy) and foul them to oblivion.
A lot of people don't like aging. But the problem with it is not what it does. Rather, it's how it does it. You can be sure that they'll replace it with something else next year. Let's just hope it will be better, not worse!
As for your suggestion, that's not balanced at all. It's way too slanted against low AV teams. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 07:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Actually, things were very unbalanced back then, because a team that was 11 or 31 TR lower than its opponent had a much bigger chance of winning than the other one, which doesn't make sense at all. The cards were way too powerful. Not to mention when you rolled a 1 for cards and the opponent rolled a 6.
- Not true if you calculate Handicap on % difference and make sure only ONE person rolls for the cards (none of the 1 and 6 rubbish)
But the more luck is involved, the less frequent it will be for the best coach to win, even if on average the best coach will win more no matter how much luck is involved. Hope this was clear, not sure it was, but it's a very important point you have to understand.
- In theory true, however this trend has never been seen in our league. Each coach win % seems to be independent of cards etc... Which implies that the way we have set it up at least, *is* balanced.
A lot of people don't like aging. But the problem with it is not what it does. Rather, it's how it does it. You can be sure that they'll replace it with something else next year. Let's just hope it will be better, not worse!
- Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Which is why I like in game niggling injury effects etc... The objection is to the ageing mechanism (and name - it shouldn't be "ageing" it should be "wear and tear" or "stress" - they ain't old!) |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 10:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
IMO Pro being a skill hurts more players (like those mentioned) than it solves problems.
Vamps have already had Hypno Gaze reduced and judgng from recent BBB league stuff and the BB Mag I would think at least 2 of the BBRC thought they didn't need toning down.
Big Guys problems are a lot more fundamental I think than the overuse of Pro, can't see this being adopted in my league. |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 - 12:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Apedog wrote: Vamps have already had Hypno Gaze reduced
I'd call it "modified," but it's not "reduced." It's clearly more effective at what it's supposed to do, since it now works on a roll of 2-6 regardless of the opponent's AG. It's no longer "free," but since nothing else in the game allows you to take an action and do something else useful besides, I don't see a problem there.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
