| Author |
Message |
GalakStarscraper |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 08, 2005 - 05:49 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Okay ... that team doesn't bother me as much as the Zlurpee one as in the new rules that team will be 90k more expensive that when you used it. That means you'd really need to slice something out to make room for the extra cost overhead.
Thanks for the details of the roster.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 02:48 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| Ah - its the messing around with the stars that really through me. I couldn't work out why Beefy had Luthor the whole match, yet there didn't seem to be the usual load of freebooting in the last few rounds. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 06:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Yeah, I think raising the cost of all just meant we couldn't counter the players like Luthor with freebooters. Not that my ogres could counter much of anything. I lost the casualty count to woodies 2-0.
I rock !!!
Andrew |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 10, 2005 - 07:22 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| I had players complain about the 'usual load of freebooting' occurring at CanCon and so the more expensive freeboot measure was to try to counter that. Perhpas in hindsight it let Beefy through wit an easier run. There is no doubt however, that Beefy won the tournament by solid BB coaching and more than a little luck - but the Luthor on the roster was a leg up. What I am trying to prevent, however, is 5 or 6 coaches turning up with 'copycat' rosters at CanCon in '06. That would be really disappointing. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 11, 2005 - 05:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
I never 'copycat'. It wouldn't make any difference. With my dice I could play 11 Luthors and still lose!
Andrew |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 11, 2005 - 08:04 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Yeah! 11 Luthors is balanced
Seriously Andrew. Maybe we need to work on some counselling - because this seems to be a case of 'self fulfilling prophecy'. You think you will fail, so you do?
I'm not saying somehow your mind influences your dice, but there is definately something strange going on with your record. What is the go? You're actually a good coach! |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 13, 2005 - 09:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
It is actually dice. I know the statistics say otherwise but I NEVER roll well. It's not just BB. Ask anyone who has played ANYTHING with me. My dice are consistently bad. As I say quite frequently I have rolled seven ones in a row on a D20 playing D&D and I frequently roll 4 or five in a row. Ask the guys I played against at MOAB. If one of my players fails a roll there's no point my re-rolling it because I VERY rarely pass the re-roll (even 2+ rerolls).
That's why I've all but given up playing 'serious' teams. Tactics and strtegy are sound, but as soon as a dice is rolled everything falls apart.
Maybe one of my ancestors pissed off a witch or something and the whole family line was cursed??
[shrugs]
Andrew |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Twahn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 16, 2005 - 01:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
My 2 cents on the Count...
BEEFYGOODNESS with extra CHEESE 
I think we all agree the Beefy deserved to win MOAB because he's a very able coach, played very well (he certainly did against me and in the Final I spectated), and from all account didn't suffer any major luck swings (quite likely considering only 1 reroll and very little in the way of skills on the team). Beefy is a champion, no doubt, and did well to win.
That aside, his team was broken.
I agree completely with earlier comments that upping the Freebooter fee worsened the Count issue, as it simply meant that if you didn't hire a Star to start with you just weren't going to be able to afford to freeboot one (or even want to at that huge price for a one game showing!) later in the tournament. This left us with a situation where Beefy's Undead were the only team (barring stunties) with cheap enough linemen (and no Apoth to be bought) to cough up for a Star to start with and still manage to field a decent team (2 Mummies, 2 Ghouls).
I think if you want to prevent wholesale Star hiring in the finals rounds, just ban them altogether. Otherwise, have your half the permanent price to freeboot thing but don't allow them to be bought permanently at all.
The simple fact is that other teams just cannot afford them, and the option of starting with either Galak's or Beefy's Count led lineups is a pretty bloody tempting option if we allow it again.
My game with Beefy was a tight battle and I really enjoyed it. I had some VERY good luck in the midterm though, the only thing that allowed me a hope of winning the game, though it was a close battle to make it a draw...
Also, I think I'm a skilled and mature enough player to know what I need to do to combat a player like the Count. A less experienced player would really struggle. It certainly isn't an easy thing to do.
When you've got a guy with ST5 and Blodge, on a team that also has two ST5 mummies to tie up players, it's not a hard thing to wipe out enough assisting tackle zones around the Count to ensure a two dice against block in every instance. You need two helpers to even get a one die block. The limited skills on your team mean it's unlikely you've got enough Tackle or Guard to make your job any easier (I think I had 3 Guarders and 1 Tackler when I faced him in my second last game) and you've got to roll POWs do do anything to him!
I knocked him down like 4 times and fouled him a bit, at one point I was even concocting a plan to surf the bastard! Beefy and I, our game could really have gone either way. Regardless though, he's undeniably a far more powerful presence on the field than any other team can even come close to matching. If you go with the same format at Cancon, I reckon you'll see facsimile teams for sure.
My suggestion would be to just not allow permanent Stars. If you want less of them in the last games, up the freebooting price, sure.
I personally am not one to hire them very often, and I don't think they really add anything of tactical interest to the game.
*****
Regarding confusion with the rules. I had none. There were a few who didn't realise the Freebooting rule, but that's just because they didn't read the rules. There were also a few who weren't familiar with the current Blood Bowl LRB4 rules, but I think that's often the case at Tourneys where you may have players who haven't taken the field for a while and are still thinking in old ways. Most were pretty understanding of the fact that they were out of date and were happy to be helped along with the changes that have been made. Didn't think there were any issues here really...
*****
One criticism I'd like to make however is the scoring system. I've always found the 7 point scoring system to be unfair to low AV, low MA teams like Zons and Norse. These teams lack the ability to score very quickly because of their MA6 across the board, and are likely also to suffer more Casualties than their opponents purely because they have AV7.
Let's imagine I play a 7 game tournament, and win every game 2-1 suffering more Cas than I deal out. I score 4 points every round. Total score 28.
Then there's a Dark Elf team, they get 3 wins 3-1, where they beat their opponents up also on account of their AV8, speedy players, ability to dodge away, and across the board Blodge access.
18 points for these 3 wins.
Then they get 3 draws, they win the CAS in these too. 9 more points makes 27.
The last game they lose. They get wiped out 4-0, but still manage to win the CAS by 1. 2 Points are awarded and they win the tournament with a score of 29 (beating my 28 ).
My record: 7-0-0, their record: 3-3-1
There's no justice there. You may well say that that's why you have the final round as a Finals type arrangement, so the tourney winner has to actually win the last game, but my team won't be on that 1st vs. 2nd table most likely, with this scoring system, so what does it matter?
A simple 3-1-0 soccer style scoring system is far more just, and the swiss system works well using it. If you need to have some kind of tie breaker running in the background (perhaps using the 7 point system) as a second tier scoring mechanism, well so be it. The scenario I outlined above though is simply what happens, and it's wrong. Inflicting CAS has very little at all to do with skill and has much more to do with luck and team selection. Scoring excess TDs has more to do with skill, but is still heavily driven by team selection.
I'm not really a super-competative kind of guy, so I've never really cared. The wrongness of it irks me though, so I thought I'd mention it.
*****
Great tournament though. Great fun had by all! |
_________________
Founder of the Southern Wastes League
DonTwahn's Dungeon = Cheap GW Minis!!
Last edited by Twahn on Oct 16, 2005 - 03:11 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 16, 2005 - 02:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
I was toying with norse for Cancon but hadn't really considered this. It's actualy a good point. Believe me I know how hard it is to run tournies (I've run my share) and Babs does a great job. This may be something to consider in the future?
Andrew |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 16, 2005 - 09:53 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Twahn wrote: My suggestion would be to just not allow permanent Stars. If you want less of them in the last games, up the freebooting price, sure. I personally am not one to hire them very often, and I don't think they really add anything of tactical interest to the game.
I think Babs was trying to get away from the "everyone freebooting stars for the last N rounds". Fair enough, and by the sound of it, it didn't really work.
There is part of me that thinks ban stars - but then we are just going to see lots of wizards (apart from the poor undead teams) instead.
Alternatively I think just suck it up. A consequence of a 7 game league is that its optimal play for many teams to spend their income on stars and its an accepted part of the tournament that this gives some teams an advantage over other teams.
Twahn wrote: A simple 3-1-0 soccer style scoring system is far more just, and the swiss system works well using it.
One really big advantage of not using such a system is that people have much more fun playing games in systems where the TDs and Cas count towards the primary score.
Basically if you are leading 1-0 you've got little incentive to score again - if you are losing 0-3 then you've no incentive to keep on trying. Having TDs and Cas incorporated into the main score (almost regardless of how insignificant) makes people have more fun because they think they have something to play for. Having TD/Cas as the 1st tie break seems to make almost no difference to the majority of coach's perception of the scoring system and incentives offered.
Maybe reducing the importance of margin of victory and cas difference would help reduce the chance of the problem you outlined occurring - but removing it altogether is a bad idea IMO. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 16, 2005 - 11:06 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Really I do actually really like the 7 point system, and there's really only one small problem. Twahn has helpfully pointed it out:
* You get the same points for drawing the game with a winning casualty count as for winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count.
It's the only situation that irks me about the system. Everything else about it I actually like:
1. It's simple. There's only 7 points involved per game played
2. It keeps the leaderboard close
3. There's things to play for (casualties, keeping within 1 TD) even when the final W/D/L is decided.
4. It's been in use for 4 years now - and in leagues even longer. This point in itself is not really a reason not to change - but it has 'status quo' or intertia.
5. People are familiar with it. People who play SWL on FUMBBL use a very similar system.
Anyway. Enough said. I actually don't think the situation really crops up enough except if I was using the wins record as a tiebreak should it matter. If something really unusual was happening such as someone drawing all their games but winning the casualty count would I step in. I honeslty don't think it really hampers the performance of Amazon and Norse teams any more than they are already hampered in a normal progression tournament. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Twahn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 01:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
I agree regarding the whole interest point, with people having other things to play for rather than just a 'will I win or will I lose', and as I said I'm not really that fussed.
The main point though is exactly as you say, Babs, and I think the best resolution is surely to simply award more for the actual win! Having a draw with CAS won worth the same as a tight win with CAS lost is just plain crap. Why not a 9 point system where you have 2 extra points for winning? That gives my example Amazons a 6/3 scoreline for winning instead of a 4/3 one, and also means you get at least 6 for winning to compare with 5 for drawing and winning the CAS. At least it's something, though deep down inside, I'm still dubious...
For the record, SWL uses a straight 5-2-1 scoring system with anything else only being used for tiebreakers. We've tried 7 point systems but gave them up in favour of rewarding the actual result, because of the inherent lack of equality in rewarding how the result is obtained. |
_________________
Founder of the Southern Wastes League
DonTwahn's Dungeon = Cheap GW Minis!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 07:43 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: * You get the same points for drawing the game with a winning casualty count as for winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count.
I'm not sure how the 7 point works. The system I've used for my tournaments sounds similar to the 7 point but we don't have the issue stated above:
Win: 55 points
Tie: 35 points
Loss: 10 points
Won by 2+ points = +10
Lost by only 1 point = +10
Caused 2 or more casualties than opponent = +10
Caused one casualty more than opponent = +5
So a Draw with +1 CAS is 40 points and +2 CAS is 45 points compared to winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count which is 55 points.
In effect you get these range bands with the above system:
Win: 55 to 75 points
Tie: 35 to 45 points
Loss: 10 to 30 points
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 03:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
I still don't like that system either.
IMO, in any system, the baseline should have:
1 win >= 2 Draws
1 Draw >= 2 losses |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 03:58 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Chunky wrote: I still don't like that system either.
IMO, in any system, the baseline should have:
1 win >= 2 Draws
1 Draw >= 2 losses That system in my experience leads to folks going home and leaving the tournament after the first two games as they have no hope to compete if they didn't win the first two games (or in your case the first game).
You might not have that issue in Oz ... but I DEFINITELY have it where I am. So the point system because of this insures that if you are playing close and tight and lose a game ... you are not completely out of the running.
I'm not saying its the best ... not by a long shot ... just was trying to understand Bab's 7 point system as it sounds similar to what I use ... but I don't have the problem he mentioned.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
