 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Indigo |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 02:49 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I disagree with the "go to Chess for strategy" line of thought, as it suggests that all the good players are simply lucky. I doubt that's what you intended people to think, but it is easy to make that connection...
The handicap table has the right idea by taking inspiration from the cards but removing the insanely powerful ones and removing the "unexpected play killers". i.e. you know from the start which player is Iron Man, so although it's a great boost to the underdog it then allows better strategy to play a part too (maybe not a great example but you get the idea).
I'm not against a system that rewards the underdog and provides incentives to play, I'm just against the sheer randomness that the cards represent. We just need a better handicap table... |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 04:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
The sentiment is not "go to chess if you want strategy" it is "go to chess if all you want is strategy".
The biggest problem I've had accepting the table is that it totally removes the element of surprise. That authentic 'how the f*ck did they do that' moment of panic as your smugly superior best laid plans get blown apart. This removes all the tension and excitement from the game, at least for the higher TR team.
I quite liked the possibility of teams permanently losing re rolls, FF or cash. Having players arrested, press ganged etc. Under the current system the big guys have little to fear from playing a minnow. Similarly not every team can be described as fair and balanced, cough'flings, or said to have an even chance against every other race, so arguing it all comes down to coaching ability is BS. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lackey |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 19
Status: Offline
|
|
noodle1978uk wrote:
You can prepare for burst ball by scoring earlier than you otherwise would
Can't burst ball be played at any time, so you're opponent would just play it as you move your player into the TD zone? How can that be prepared for?
Quote:
Cards tend (in my experience) to be an incentive for people to play (ooh I might get something good  ) which can only be a good thing...
I much prefer to play people who are there for the fun and challange of matching wits with the opposing coach, rather than are there on the off-chance that something good may randomly happen. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:11 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: The biggest problem I've had accepting the table is that it totally removes the element of surprise. That authentic 'how the f*ck did they do that' moment of panic as your smugly superior best laid plans get blown apart. This removes all the tension and excitement from the game, at least for the higher TR team.
This is where we are completely differing then - the best laid plans getting blown apart by an audacious counter-tactic is one thin, but getting shafted because he has an overpowered card is another! The best, tensest games come not from having a card ready, or fearing the card your opponent has, but from well coached plays countering each other. 1-1 in turn 14 when it can go either way is much more tense than simply fearing the card. And less sickening than losing to a card too. If I was then beaten in said match 2-1, although I'd be gutted I could at least say "best coach won" or at the least "best coach won with a bit of luck too". If the card comes into it, it's more like "I'd have won if it wasn't for that f**king card  , I was better than him"
Mordredd wrote: I quite liked the possibility of teams permanently losing re rolls, FF or cash. Having players arrested, press ganged etc. Under the current system the big guys have little to fear from playing a minnow. Similarly not every team can be described as fair and balanced, cough'flings, or said to have an even chance against every other race, so arguing it all comes down to coaching ability is BS.
I can see how bigger teams losing a re-roll/FF/cash is worthwhile, although I don't think cards are the way to do it. A multi-tiered handicap system, whereby coaches can get many rolls on a "minor effect" table, or fewer rolls on a more powerful table could be the way to go. That way, if they fancy their chances despite the TR gap they can take a few "minor" tricks that could help them swing the match but at least the opponent can TRY to do something about it! Alternatively, if they know they are outclassed (Halflings or Gobbos - whatever) then they can take a chance and go for rolls that are more likely to boost their cash/FF/team, or potentially damage their opponents team (maybe hitting star player(s), cash, FF, RR) |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lackey |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 19
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: The handicap table has the right idea by taking inspiration from the cards but removing the insanely powerful ones and removing the "unexpected play killers"... We just need a better handicap table...
I agree. After a quick glance Chet's card deck looks like a nice comprimise, and it sounds like it's had more play testing and tweaking than the original card decks could have got (No criticism of GW intended, just that the combined size of the 3 decks was at least 100-150 cards, with that amount of randomness it'd take a long time to properly tweak).
The card decks are part of an anomalous period of GW history, when everything they did seemed to include as much randomness as possible, for example the random magic & physic decks for WFB and 40k. This frequently led to games (within my group of friends at least) which were not all that balanced or fun due to random chance. Hence they have, with good reason, returned to more balanced, less random, methods for these games, and I am thankful that the same reasoning has, to a certain degree, been applied to BB. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I think that you have something of a logical contradiction going here. What, exactly, is the difference between getting a lucky card that helps you win the match and getting lucky rolls that help you win the match?
Besides, who said anything about 1 overpowered card? I certainly did not. It was the surprise, couldn't be planned for element I was after. A combination of unconventional play, audacity and luck that allows real teams to take on and beat their superiors. In game terms this is very unlikely to happen, as the numbers are so heavily weighted in favour of the higher TR team. The cards enabled you to pull off unconventional surprises, which the table emphatically does not.
The likes of Burst Ball are just like the wizard used to be. It stopped one TD in a gruesomely unfair, can't be stopped way. If you were made to play it at the beginning of your turn it would be a lot better. You would lose a turn for playing it, which I think is a fair price. Combined with making it a pretty damn rare occurrence and I wouldn't have a problem with it being played on me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 05:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Lackey, you are wrong about the randomness. In the old days of 40k you did not buy wargear. You bought a roll on the wargear/weapons/grenades/etc table. This was extremely random. You still randomly generate your spells in WFB, Ld in Gothic, territory in Necromunda etc.
The problem with the level of randomness with the cards in BB was that both teams got them. You could have 3 each without a handicap. In fact, a handicap of 2 cards could be cancelled out completely by unlucky rolling. With the current low numbers for the handicap even the likes of Burst Ball would have a low impact (relative to before) as it would convert, say, a 1-0 win into a draw. And there would have to be a large TR difference for you to have a second card, let alone a third, to swing the game in your favour. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 06:27 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: I think that you have something of a logical contradiction going here. What, exactly, is the difference between getting a lucky card that helps you win the match and getting lucky rolls that help you win the match?
We need to differentiate when the "luck" is brought into the equation. A higher TR team may have lower odds for failing actions, but will still fail them - that's not good or bad luck, just statistics. The cards are biased, so although still random you are more likely to get overpowered cards because there are more overpowered cards in there.
Mordredd wrote:
Besides, who said anything about 1 overpowered card? I certainly did not. It was the surprise, couldn't be planned for element I was after. A combination of unconventional play, audacity and luck that allows real teams to take on and beat their superiors. In game terms this is very unlikely to happen, as the numbers are so heavily weighted in favour of the higher TR team. The cards enabled you to pull off unconventional surprises, which the table emphatically does not.
First of all you say you need unconventional play to beat a better team, then an unconventional surprise?!? Why is a surprise (in the form of a card rather than a surprising play) needed to allow a low TR team to beat a high TR team? As you've said, good, bold/unconventional play and maybe that little bit of luck is what is needed. That desperate long bomb, or throwing every man at the rolling cage only to stop it on turn 8. When Newcastle play a minnow team, like Birmingham for example  , they should expect Birmingham to raise their game and try risky tactics in an effort to win, rather than things they can't plan for like adding extra men. We need something similar in Blood Bowl, something the low TR coach can use but what the high TR coach can try and counter.
What is needed is a system that either a) boosts players so a coach can get more out of them than normal or b) affects teams so if a coach is not willing to try for the win they can boost their team or retard their opponents after the match.
I'm not sure why you think a surprise is the solution to allow a low TR team to beat a HR team. Is it not something that can boost a low TR to sufficiently higher levels to increase their chances of winning temporarily (one match) while still allowing coach skill to be a factor?
Remember what the problem is. We want teams that are 50TR or so lower to be more competitve. Using the cards, you still have the chance that in a more even contest, say 10 or 20 TR difference, one team gets an uber-card and then is at an unfair advantage. The scale of the handicap given to the underdog needs to reflect the difference in TR. Hence my tiered handicap proposal. |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 06:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: What is needed is a system that either a) boosts players so a coach can get more out of them than normal or b) affects teams so if a coach is not willing to try for the win they can boost their team or retard their opponents after the match.
I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
Cutting down the opponent's team permanently never worked here. Coaches always bribed their way out of the worst cards. It's a system that's doomed to failure without a "must be played, can't be countered" rule in place. And that rule would be more or less unenforceable.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 06:59 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
A few points...
1) The surprise element of cards is fantastic, and so much more like a model of a "real world" which I like Blood Bowl to be... Dirty tricks ARE PLAYED in the Blood Bowl universe...
2) There aren't all that many "overpowered cards" in the decks in actual fact, and all they need is a bit of tweaking. I don't mind a rule saying you have to play them in your turn, but I'd prefer to keep them "overpowered" - its just more fun that way and a HELL of a lot of strategic thinking involved!
3)Uber cards are over rated - planning for burst ball happens a lot in our league... but sometimes its just tough luck - not very often - perhaps 1 in 10 games in my experience
I'll come back to this - work has interfered!   |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 07:16 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I think we need to bear in mind the cards are never coming back. Is it not going to be better to focus on some new handicap tables instead?
I personally dislike the "sticking things onto playing cards" ideas too, using tables in a book is neater for one thing, and you can't "lose" an entry in the table like you can a card And it's a helluva lot less fiddly! |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 07:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
Cutting down the opponent's team permanently never worked here. Coaches always bribed their way out of the worst cards. It's a system that's doomed to failure without a "must be played, can't be countered" rule in place. And that rule would be more or less unenforceable.
-Chet
Interesting points!
These are the very two we have faced over the last 7 years in our league (and ours is one of the UK's biggest).
RE: The first point - with ageing, new winnings table, loans (teehee) and the cards, team ratings are naturally sucked towards a single flat plateaux between 250-300. Cards actually help level this as does handicap MVPs - it works BOTH ways
RE:point 2 - We decided to present a list of cards which COULD and COULDN'T be bought off. We also said random events MUST be played...
And you're right it *is* unenforcable - But so is ageing and cheating in general!
If people realie its a game they will usually accept it... Oh and a high team rating is not desirable!
but good points that we did see for many years under 3E
Overall LRB is better for balance, but we just prefer surprise cards to the table, and we prefer cards to balance a game rather than slowing team development |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 07:35 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: I think we need to bear in mind the cards are never coming back. Is it not going to be better to focus on some new handicap tables instead?
I personally dislike the "sticking things onto playing cards" ideas too, using tables in a book is neater for one thing, and you can't "lose" an entry in the table like you can a card And it's a helluva lot less fiddly!
Which is a shame because I'd love to have them back and better - more balanced
They're only not coming back because they're not cost effective to produce... GW is going away from cards in general...
So yes - lets focus on the handicap table.. Anyway of re-introducing surprise? I'd say the table needs seriously beefing up. |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 08:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
but what if you are the ONLY low TR team in a league where you don't choose who your opponents are but are told who they are. what then? you are DOOMED to be decimated every single match. in open format leagues i can see where it may be a problem but with structured leagues you might as well drop out. then again, if you play in a league like mine and even consider dropping out you are threatened with not being aloowed back in the league because you messed up the "careful planning of their season."
so your statement isn't really applicable in all situations. only in open format leagues. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2003 - 08:34 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Its not great in an open format league - you basically can't catch up...
So we keep the extra MVPs - they're quite rare anyway...
This is a much better solution than:
1) No handicap at all - smaller team decimated 
2) Stalling bigger team's development - boring for the bigger team
With winnings penalties and ageing all that will happen with MVPs is that the team cycle will be sped up. Team ratings will NOT spiral out of control like in 3E (650 anyone??!!!!)
But I digress. |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
