Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[garion]

You can check out the house rules on Fumbbl here folks.

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group ... group=7542

Sneaky plug.

IMO, the solution on FUMBBL should be relegation/promotion within blackbox. If you win you stay in a top grouping of competitive teams. If you lose you go down. Teams that specialize in killing before winning self-filter into a lower division. If they can kill and win, so be it. That's blood bowl. Winning is the only non-arbitrary measure of success available. Commishes should use this to "incentivize" good meta-conditions before they consider tinkering with the in-game rules.

I doubt if there are enough coaches for multiple 'sub divisions'. Also, the rookies would get stuck in with the team manglers. Way to kill off new blood.

I'm not so keen on the Bank either. It seems to penalise the wussier teams more than the bashers.

Traits seem like a good idea but if someone gets lucky and creates a monster teams it would be harder to create to team to compete with them.

Which would bring me to my next big change, get rid of all the completely pointless and useless stars and bring in effective ones, like Frank N steinwho could bring some pain and other good stars from the past. Also if fouling was improved as suggested above those super star players would not last too long because they would be a major fouling target.

At the moment the only real threat to star CPOMB players comes when facing other CPOMB players. It's daft they should be fighting for their survival game in game out, where improved fouling comes in. I also despise the way CPOMB players are safer on the floor than they are standing up at the moment. Its nuts. They should fear laying prone not hope the inevitable ko+ comes from pilling on rather than their first + av cas roll.

[Warpstone]

And unfortunately this is where house rule discussions often jump the shark.

You see, you had a problem (PK teams in Blackbox) and then suggested another in-game change (star player revamping). You now have... two problems.

Structural problems should get structural answers. I'm not against house rules in principal, but I think you only alter the CPOMB skills and in-game factors related to them (i.e star players) if you think the combo itself is overpowered. Otherwise, mixing structural issues with in-game effects is mystery meat policy, not a clever house rule.

You may not believe me, but LRB6 is about as well-balanced as the game ever has been. Blackbox has a structural problem due to open play. Your options are really either to drastically alter the box (i.e. it's tantamount to ladder play as dode74 mentioned) or accept that PK is a necessary evil of the box's open structure.

It's no different online than it is on tabletop. Most of us prefer to play in league structures that are not perpetually open.

[garion]

I'm not talking about blackbox. My main problem with the rule set isn't CPOMB. I win against those teams more than not. Though I still think it is too effective at removing players from the pitch for a skill combo that is so easy to aquire, making it a little rarer would be beneficial for the game and would possibly make life harder for elves etc anyway, as teams would then take more tackle etc... I also thing hyperbash is too focused on a small pool of teams, and I would like more teams to bring the blood to bloodbowl

Anyhow, my main problem with this rule set is how boring team development has become, bringing back traits would see more diversity in skill selection instead of maxing out one or two combinations of skills, and completely ignoring the majority of skills. It would make the game more interesting imo.

Those rule changes I have suggested are not off the cuff, they have been well thought out, but I'm not going to go into all my reasoning for all of them here, if you want to know more feel free to PM me and I will send you an essay

I also prefer to play in league structures than open leagues, but the problems with team development are still there.

The star player changes i suggest isnt to solve a CPOMb issue, it is just to give teams more options with their star players because currently each team has some real duds and taking extra apos, wizards and babes is usually better than wasting time with your star players. I would like it to be a tricky decision sometimes.

[dode74]

I doubt if there are enough coaches for multiple 'sub divisions'. Also, the rookies would get stuck in with the team manglers. Way to kill off new blood.

That's merely a structural issue, not a conceptual one. It would be easy enough to have a newbie division for teams with < N games played, for example. Doubtless there are flaws with any change, but the real question is not "what's wrong with the new suggestion" but "is the new suggestion an improvement on the old".

I'm not so keen on the Bank either. It seems to penalise the wussier teams more than the bashers.

I'd be interested in Galak's take on that based on lots of playtesting. The Bank was playtested in the Vault, as you are doubtless aware.

Traits seem like a good idea but if someone gets lucky and creates a monster teams it would be harder to create to team to compete with them.

"Getting lucky" is a part of BB, and when you make the relevant roll is a part of the luck. A double six can get you a long bomb from one Saurus to another, or it can get you +ST on a level-up: which is luckier?

[koadah]

I doubt if there are enough coaches for multiple 'sub divisions'. Also, the rookies would get stuck in with the team manglers. Way to kill off new blood.

That's merely a structural issue, not a conceptual one. It would be easy enough to have a newbie division for teams with < N games played, for example. Doubtless there are flaws with any change, but the real question is not "what's wrong with the new suggestion" but "is the new suggestion an improvement on the old".

OK. To say it your way I think it would be worse than what we have now.

I'm not so keen on the Bank either. It seems to penalise the wussier teams more than the bashers.

I'd be interested in Galak's take on that based on lots of playtesting. The Bank was playtested in the Vault, as you are doubtless aware.

Ah. I thought we were talking about the box. As Galak did not test the box I'm not sure how relevant that is.

Traits seem like a good idea but if someone gets lucky and creates a monster teams it would be harder to create to team to compete with them.

"Getting lucky" is a part of BB, and when you make the relevant roll is a part of the luck. A double six can get you a long bomb from one Saurus to another, or it can get you +ST on a level-up: which is luckier?

The long bomb only helps you win one game. The +ST helps you until the player dies.

+ST is quite expensive. Other combinations may also be very effective but cheaper.

[dode74]

OK. To say it your way I think it would be worse than what we have now.

Ok, in what way exactly. There are several criteria we are trying to meet here, so to properly assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) we should really identify and prioritise these and then assess the changes in the light of these. The rulesets which satisfy the most criteria at the highest priority would likely be contenders for proper testing to see which works best. Personally, I think that incentivising winning in this manner is a high priority, alongside the game being fun and not overly complex, and being able to find a game in good time.

Ah. I thought we were talking about the box. As Galak did not test the box I'm not sure how relevant that is.

We are talking about applying a rule which has been tested to the box. If (as I suspect) the bank proved beneficial to agi teams in the Vault then I'm curious on what you're basing your opinion that it would prove beneficial to bash teams in the box. Personally I think that the real thing which gives bash an edge in the box (and MM) is that you can play a lot of games very quickly, getting past any developmental drag which they normally suffer from. If that is the problem then matching by games played would achieve some of the required objectives as well, for example.

The long bomb only helps you win one game. The +ST helps you until the player dies.

My point precisely. The timing of luck is just as important as the degree of it.

[GalakStarscraper]

The feedback we had to the bank was that it didn't penaltize any type of team more than another. Keep in mind that the goal of CRP rules was that your team would not spiral up to high levels. When Jervis deleted the bank rules that the BBRC had 100% agreed should be in CRP, he changed a big piece of the game balance on a whim.

The bank was there so that you DON'T have a big safety blanket as you get up there in TV (or if you do ... you pay for it with sacrificed inducements). Yes an AG team might get hit hard by a game but a good Claw player can do the same to high AV. The idea of the bank rules was that they would assist the ebb and flow of a normal team AND give you more reasons to have a team that wasn't just always 11 or 12 players but maybe keep a team of 13 players so you could better absorb a player loss.

Like I said ... Jervis stayed out of designing rules for BB for 2 years ... I have no idea why he felt he could take hundreds of games of playtest data and come up with a better idea in the 2 seconds he thought about it (ie Petty Cash).

So no ... we didn't see any AG bias to the bank rules ... they were reported to do exactly what we wanted them to do.

Tom/Galak

[koadah]

OK. To say it your way I think it would be worse than what we have now.

Ok, in what way exactly. There are several criteria we are trying to meet here, so to properly assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) we should really identify and prioritise these and then assess the changes in the light of these. The rulesets which satisfy the most criteria at the highest priority would likely be contenders for proper testing to see which works best. Personally, I think that incentivising winning in this manner is a high priority, alongside the game being fun and not overly complex, and being able to find a game in good time.

I think segmenting would reduce your chances of getting a game. I assume that you mean doing away with TV matching which seems set in stone on Fumbbl.
Last night I saw the box with 5 coaches in it unable to schedule a match. If anything it needs less segmentation not more.

I don't think incentivising(?) winning has much priority at all in the box. There are already tournaments (open smacks would be nice ). I don't know how many people are really into the ultra competitve side of things for their open games. If anything competitiveness kills the fun of open games more than anything else.

The real problem with the box is that people like different things and the user base is not big enough to support multiple boxes for different tastes.

Ah. I thought we were talking about the box. As Galak did not test the box I'm not sure how relevant that is.

We are talking about applying a rule which has been tested to the box. If (as I suspect) the bank proved beneficial to agi teams in the Vault then I'm curious on what you're basing your opinion that it would prove beneficial to bash teams in the box. Personally I think that the real thing which gives bash an edge in the box (and MM) is that you can play a lot of games very quickly, getting past any developmental drag which they normally suffer from. If that is the problem then matching by games played would achieve some of the required objectives as well, for example.

I'm assuming that Bank means 100k is free and the rest of your cash counts towards TV. Bash teams just don't seem to need as much money. These huge cash reserves are not really a big deal in the box. It's a bigger deal that the weaker teams can save some money when times are good to see them through when times are hard. With out that people lose heart sooner.

IMO TV matching is the best choice. People just need to option to play with wider bands or no TV matching.

The long bomb only helps you win one game. The +ST helps you until the player dies.

My point precisely. The timing of luck is just as important as the degree of it.

Not really sure what your point is.
Mine was that without traits luck has has of an impact on how good your team is. And yes many people don't like that complaing of clone teams.

[koadah]

The feedback we had to the bank was that it didn't penaltize any type of team more than another.

If only because the wussier teams struggled to maintain 100k in the first place.

I'd say it's more psychological than anything. Something that helps people think that they can keep their wussballers alive is good.

100k will buy you a chaos warrior so unless you lose two there's not much difference. Beasties are covered by journeymen so I need to lose two CWs in a game or consecutive games for me to really feel a difference.

Keep in mind that the goal of CRP rules was that your team would not spiral up to high levels.

What do you consider high TV?

If anything I think it is the difficulty that people have maintaining a team at over 1900 that is puting people off. Fumbblers like their big teams.

[Daht]

The bank rules keep the high tv teams in balance, elf/av7 teams would normally be in that range of cash anyway due to attrition, while orc/chaos/dwarfs sit on (sometimes literally) a million treasury to easily replace any lost player (when it relatively rarely happens)

[koadah]

The bank rules keep the high tv teams in balance, elf/av7 teams would normally be in that range of cash anyway due to attrition, while orc/chaos/dwarfs sit on (sometimes literally) a million treasury to easily replace any lost player (when it relatively rarely happens)

That's my point really. They're not using the money because they don't need it.

It may not matter to the AV7s but it's very nice for the AV8s.


I have had yet another person today saying that building 'big' teams was one of the things that they really enjoyed.

So really it is not that the rules are not working it is probably that many Fumbblers especially don't really like what the rules are trying to do.

Games decided too early on by bashing and not being able to build big teams are I think the main issues in the Box.

[dode74]

Koadah

You know my opinion on TV-based MM. Lose it and suddenly your options to get a game widen enormously. If winning isn't the priority in the box then people can't really complain when something else becomes the priority - as we discussed based on your previous stats, that appears to be survival.

Cash reserves are a cushion. Lose the reserve and force high TV teams to play the occasional game with loners or very few reserves and they'll suffer for it. Agi teams do that already.

TV matching is terrible, imo. Games played would far better resemble the league system for which the game is designed.

Games decided too early on by bashing and not being able to build big teams are I think the main issues in the Box.

Then they need a different ruleset entirely. Big TV means the game becomes a "who rolls the least 1s" contest, and that's simply not fun imo. In order to change that there would need to be a big change to how the rules combine. Unless, of course, what people really want is a "who rolls the least 1s" contest.

[koadah]

As I said earlier Dode.

The real problem with the box is that people like different things and the user base is not big enough to support multiple boxes for different tastes.

[dode74]

On that basis people's expectation of the game, and the concept of MM entirely, is flawed. The discussion is how to iron out those flaws.

[GalakStarscraper]

Fumbblers like their big teams.

Then that is there issue ... the design goals of CRP were specifically to effect those teams. JJ really wanted that but wasn't in his head able to understand how the bank helped with that ... so we lost one of the pieces of the tower we built to do what he said he wanted.

Tom