Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[Ghost]

Dode; Sigh I am all in all a very friendly, laid back and relaxed guy, so I will say this to you in a friendly and laid back way. People generally disklike party poopers. Party poopers who show up with their subjective opinions, telling others how their subjective opinion is wrong when they are having a debate they find interesting. You have been told multiple times, why we don't see the same things in the game as you - let alone your stats. Yet for some reason, you demand to know better than everyone else. Whatever was the designgoal does not mean the game can not be improved further. We are many likeminded people thinking so, and we try to get a constructive debate going expanding on our views. We get that you don't find there is any isues, and we respect and are fine with that. Now that is clear once and for all, noted down in the book and all, can you please accept that some people have a different view to you and let them have their conversation? Nobody wants to spend all their time gathering some kind of evidence or data that satisfies you - because they don't care. Your opinion is one amongst others, and is as subjective as others.

Rhyoth; I think you are on to the core issue here. Some skills are more valuable, leading them to be picked over other skills in competitive environments, leading to copy-cat teams and little variation. What about making some level up rolls give maybe two random skills, from the skill-trees available to said player?

Joe; I think like others in here, that gaining 5 skills on a 12 roll is over-the-top. But I agree with you in the core, that changing the TV of skills and thus the related mechanism that brings the same cookiecutter teams with it, is a good thing. I have been thinking something similar to you before. I might have gone a different way, though, and make skills more expensive when they are picked the 3rd, 4th, 5th, .... you get the picture.... time. I think it could lead to more variation in teambuilds. You open up options for going untraditional ways, by rewarding alternative and varied builds in terms of TV. I would have to think more about it, to come up with a more workable solution though. Some teams, like Dark Elves, would probably be hit too hard when they can't spam Block and Dodge. I like the idea you have presented in its core, but I think it contains its own flaws. 5 skills in one go is too much imho. But working from your suggestion is interesting I think, and I will see what I can come up with.

[dode74]

I know you don't like me challenging your assumption that there needs to be a change, but the fact remains that you have made that assumption. This is a forum for new concepts. That suggests changes to the base rules that will improve those rules in some way. If someone has a change which they think will improve the game then is it not reasonable to ask them what needs improving, why it needs improving, whether their method is the best way and why? If you have a problem with that then there is no discussion with you, and from your posts thus far I doubt that is the case - you come across as a reasonable individual. Throwing ideas into a pot for discussion is fine, but don't expect people to agree with them just because there are a few like-minded individuals who think it's a good idea; that is not debate, nor will it lead to anything resembling change - it is merely backslapping and a bunch of self-congratulation. If threads were all for people who think the same thing then they would be unproductive and dull.
If you want to change the game I play then it's down to you to swing it that way, just as if I want to change the way you play I would have to do the same. You cannot expect me to simply ignore suggestions for changes to the game I enjoy, any more than I would expect you to ignore it if I were to do the same to you.

Now I am quite willing to discuss this as a basis for a house rule, as I have said, but if it is a suggestion for a change to the base rules then, pending the data from Cyanide (if I get it - I have asked), I don't see a need for it.

Regarding it as a house rule in the meantime, it's reasonable. It will require the careful selection of which skills are at which tier (and the Cyanide data may help there), and quite likely the rebalancing of several teams (dwarf, amazon and norse spring to mind if block and dodge stay there). It might also require an adjustment to SE, as I doubt even the premiums mentioned will stop people from blodging up or spamming guard. Given that I think SE is too high at the moment it might be best to leave it as it is though, depending on where you want the soft cap.

[Ghost]

Sigh. Can you please let us have the conversation that we find worthwhile. We understand you don't want any change. It is noted and all fine. But I refuse to spend my free time gathering data to please you. I want to expand on my views with like minded people in this thread. We respect your opinion, please respect ours. You seem to have been to occupied with proving us all wrong to note, that we don't think the same thing at all but are trying to have a constructive debate in regards to the ideas presented.

[dode74]

Did you read my last paragraph at all? I'm trying to move this onwards constructively.

[Ghost]

I admit to not have read the last part good enough. I was reading your post, and found it unconstructive again. But I see that the last part is trying to move forward now, so that is fine. Well, I think you are on to something here. I see the same issue in certain teams having to rely heavily on certain skills to remain competitive, and adressing balance by hurting them, might not be a good idea. An individual approach towards each roster would probably be the best way to go. But that would be very cumbersome, and I do not even dare to think about how much disagreement it would create. It would be a good way to go though, in theory. Putting skills in different categories to each roster, and even make some skills more expensive when picked multiple times. It would be difficult to get consensus on such a major change though, but it might work fine for houseruling. Trying to address the bashstacks could be done with the same tool. What I would like, though, is to have a better environment to play in online. So that would probably require more than houseruling.

[Rhyoth]

I don't want to be rude, but i think dode has a point : we're not in house rule territory anymore, so yeah, being cautious about any change in the rules, and extremly rigouros in our reasonning is important if we want to make a better rule.

Now, regarding the team by team approach, i wouldn't go anywhere near it before a test of this rule : this one is much easier to test and could possibly address some issues; besides, if it's not enough, you can always make a team by team approach afterwards.

[Ghost]

I realise we are not in the houserule section. But that still means we can discuss ideas. Without being told our opinions are wrong. Anyway, end of the day - nothing will probably ever be changed, unless GW suddenly changes behaviour. So calling it house ruling or not is rather artificial.

I agree that a team by team approach is a major thing (to say the least), and is not done easily. And to be honest, I can never see the BB community getting anywhere near concensus on such a thing. In theory it looks fine, though. But main thing I have against the skill by skill approach, is that the value is so dependent on team and teambuild, and the oponent too. It would likely create more imbalance than balance, I think. But the stacks - those I could honestly see adressed for the better of the game. Humans against Necromancers, for instance, I find a lot more interesting at TV 2000 than, say, Orcs agains Chaos. Making some skills have varied cost I like in theory, but I see it hard to make work in reality. Leaving some skills in 10 k could be fine, but making a player pick 5 of those in one level up seems not right to me.

Edit; Joes idea is kind of growing on me. Important thing here is, that skills outside normal skill-trees would still require doubles, so it would just lead to normally accessable skills that are rarely picked being picked more often. But still, I think gaining 5 skills with one level up is too much. Imagine a vampire going crazy with 5 skills in one go, one of the being pro.

Reading your change again to Joes fine suggestion Rhyoth, it actually seems pretty damned good. Would be fun to see it tested. At least it is a solid place to start.

[dode74]

Nobody said your opinion was wrong. All I did was ask you to justify it.

Anyway, I think you're right on the consensus. Without some hard data to show people it will always be about opinion. One way would be to make skills cost more dependant on how often they are used in a game. We could look at aggregated stats for each skill and see how often each one gets used when available. I suspect block, dodge, guard and MB will be right up there for this, but I'd need to see the stats to confirm. That way the skills which are used the most - the most useful - would cost more.

[mattgslater]

@ Dode: 2 things.

1) The problem is not that one strategy wins too much. It's that one strategy, if it becomes commonplace, makes several other strategies non-viable, whether it's winning or not. This is a progression/attrition game, and the decision to hang the rate of progression and attrition for maybe half the teams on the number of coaches playing a few specific team races was, IMO, a terrible mistake. I don't have a problem with the paper-scissors-rock aspect so much; for instance, I think Dwarfs are fine, because their awful speed hurts them against the very teams that suffer the most from their universal Tackle (except Amazons, which pay the Dwarfs for cheesing everyone else). That's not at all true of Chaos or Nurgle, who deal their damage against teams with similar stat profiles to themselves. Also, there are a lot more CPOMB teams than teams that start with heavy Tackle.

2) Objective data in this case is less valuable than subjective data. I have a background in formal logic too, and I know how counterintuitive that feels, but put away that little analogical argument in your head that tells you "objective data is usually better, so it's probably better here": in this particular instance, it's how the community feels about the situation that matters, and not how the outcomes look on paper. As a game designer, I don't care if X happens Y percent of the time. I care if my market of players has a problem with X happening Y percent of the time. The things I can quantify can tell me things I want to know about the things I can't quantify (less so in a complex game like this), but they can't tell me if I'm doing my job. That's what the squeaky wheels are for.

Oh, and speaking of squeaky wheels, there's a "threshold factor" to which a designer must pay heed. When the rules change and a few Darksons and Snews complain that they liked the good old days better, you mostly ignore it, and at best treat it as an excuse to leave a few popular pet rules intact on your way to the new edition. But when the people who were jumping for joy at the release of the new ruleset, and who can't stop talking about how awesomely fun the new skills are, get tired of the game because of one specific complaint (the same complaint from all of them, I might add), that's an indicator that you've got a problem. A much better indicator than all the statistics in the world.

One place Dode's right: TV-based matchmaking is stupid. All TV-based matchmaking in LRB6, even FUMBBL Ranked, where you go on gamefinder and you see name, race, coach, TV. That's a terrible way of making decisions. Racial matchups, record, coaching skill, what you had for breakfast, those all matter more than TV does. In fact, blackbox-style matchmaking would be much cooler if it were based on raw wins, or on 2W+T, or record in the last 10 games, or something like that. Yes, you'd get Bloodwine types who can't win their way out of a paper bag, playing million-gold overdogs, but if that became a problem they'd start winning and the problem would solve itself.

Also, Dode has a point that this doesn't matter at low development levels. But I can think of half a dozen fixes off the top of my head which wouldn't matter until someone had the full killstack. Joe's solution, of bringing up the other stacks to compete with it, is a tricky one from a design perspective: the easy way to do it is to nerf either Claw or PO, probably Claw, because POMB on its own is only ordinary-scary.

[dode74]

matt, both fairly put points, but we have no reliable method of measuring the subjective data. "He who shouts loudest" is no way to measure these things as it is merely an indication of the posting volume of that individual rather than how many people actually feel that way . The "threshold factor" is great if you have some way of measuring the threshold. If you can't measure the subjective data at all (or at the very least mistrust that measure which has been taken - internet polls are pretty crappy things) then what good is it?

the decision to hang the rate of progression and attrition for maybe half the teams on the number of coaches playing a few specific team races was, IMO, a terrible mistake

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. I had a look at few numbers regarding how much concentration of claw-based blocks is required to create a large effect in a pool of teams, and it's not until you get over 40% of teams with 40% of their blocks (or 20% of teams getting 80% of their blocks, or vice versa) coming from cpomb players that you increase the attrition rate significantly. I could go into detail as to how you get to these numbers if you wish. An alternative, if you really think that this is causing some teams to become non-viable, is to buff some of the ball handling skills in a manner which improves A or P access AG3 players' options - more on that in another thread.

I think you're missing my point regarding development - it doesn't matter at high development levels either. The graph I put up was for teams with 30+ games, so these were developed teams.

Joe's solution, of bringing up the other stacks to compete with it, is a tricky one from a design perspective: the easy way to do it is to nerf either Claw or PO, probably Claw, because POMB on its own is only ordinary-scary.

Claw has a defined objective of bringing the attrition rates up for teams which would have suffered from ageing but now do not - ageing was an AV-neutral effect and claw replaces that effect well. As such I think the PO nerf mentioned by plasmoid is better as it maintains the relative AV-breakage rage for AVs 7-9, and brings them all down by the same proportion of 22%.

[mattgslater]

matt, both fairly put points, but we have no reliable method of measuring the subjective data. "He who shouts loudest" is no way to measure these things as it is merely an indication of the posting volume of that individual rather than how many people actually feel that way . The "threshold factor" is great if you have some way of measuring the threshold. If you can't measure the subjective data at all (or at the very least mistrust that measure which has been taken - internet polls are pretty crappy things) then what good is it?

You know how, when you see an ant in your house, you think, "it's just one ant," but if you see a line of ants in your house you spring into action? You don't count the ants, or try to figure out what proportion of the whole colony they represent.

I'm willing to accept that there was a reason behind the way it was done how it was done, but I think there are quite a lot of coaches who have a lot of experience in a lot of rulesets, including all the LRB5+ rulesets, and a lot of different formats, who have different opinions of LRB5+, who seem to all share a problem with ClawPOMB. It's not scientific, but this is game design, and relying on scientific data is better when you're putting together the original version of the new edition. Truth is, we're still gaming out LRB5+, and still finding out what's good and what's bad. There's a lot of conventional wisdom to be turned on its ear, and now that FUMBBL is up to CRP, and with the advent of Cyanide BB, we've got a new think-tank for perpetual BB gaming that we didn't have before, and have spotted something new. Is that so hard to grasp?

the decision to hang the rate of progression and attrition for maybe half the teams on the number of coaches playing a few specific team races was, IMO, a terrible mistake

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. I had a look at few numbers regarding how much concentration of claw-based blocks is required to create a large effect in a pool of teams, and it's not until you get over 40% of teams with 40% of their blocks (or 20% of teams getting 80% of their blocks, or vice versa) coming from cpomb players that you increase the attrition rate significantly.

First, see my comment about X happening Y% of the time.

Second, we're pretty much there, once you factor in a few CMB players in with the CPOMBers to make 60% or so of the blocks on what's probably a lot more than 40% of the teams. Sorry to break it to you. I don't have hard stats to back those numbers up, but there are a lot of teams that have a number of CMB or POMB players who represent perhaps a minority of players, but make most of the team's blocks.

Third, I think it's silly to call all blocks the same. T1 line blocks are vastly more important than T14 garbage blocks, Cas for Cas. And those early blocks are the ones most likely to see the skills, because the offense can set up to thwack as they like. Also, those skills tend to go to the SPP hogs who survive for a long time. In this format, that means they're surrounded by rookies and low-skill players, because of attrition and TV concerns (which dovetail). Those players tend to be the ones who get other skills like Frenzy and Tackle, which make Pows more likely. They also often target guys with niggling injuries....

So not only am I a tad suspicious of stats like that, I think that the truth is actually pretty close to the numbers you're throwing out, if you include a fractional value for CMB.

I think you're missing my point regarding development - it doesn't matter at high development levels either. The graph I put up was for teams with 30+ games, so these were developed teams.

Oh, I understand, and I agree with your reasoning on that one.

Claw has a defined objective of bringing the attrition rates up for teams which would have suffered from ageing but now do not - ageing was an AV-neutral effect and claw replaces that effect well. As such I think the PO nerf mentioned by plasmoid is better as it maintains the relative AV-breakage rage for AVs 7-9, and brings them all down by the same proportion of 22%.

What was that solution again? Are you talking about making the re-roll à la carte? 'Cause the greenskin in me liked that one. I think the best solution really is just one that hurts the trifecta (or ClawPO) rather than hurting Claw, ClawMB, or POMB. But a straight nerf to PO would be better than nothing. A nerf to Claw (+1 on all Armour rolls against AV8+?) may be the best bet if you also buff fouling to make it easier to break AV, or to reduce the consequences for failing, in order to penalize high AV. I think the way in is in allowing a player to assist his own foul and making foul assists optional (a big hidden buff to Sneaky Git), or in changing Dirty Player back to +2 (a small hidden buff to Sneaky Git), with or without the "assist your own foul" rule (but definitely with mandatory assists, or you'll be putting out a different fire).

Oh, and I'm glad this isn't in House Rules. I hope some kind of tweak makes the next rules revision, or gets incorporated in FUMBBL. (Just not before B&C, Bombardier, and Mercenaries ... my ceterum censeo.)

[Jimmy Fantastic]

I think Claw would have been great game design had PO not existed.
I think MB would have been great game design had PO not existed.
I think Claw MB would have been great game design had PO not existed.
The simple solution is to remove PO then everyone is happy.

[mattgslater]

The existence of PO isn't a problem, IMO: most teams have a way of accounting for declawed POMB, except maybe Norse, and they'll be happy to POMB you back. I think the problem is ClawPOMB, and in particular ClawPOMB on a team that can have a lot of it (as opposed to Necro or Norse).

I've proposed this before: Claw takes a certain amount of leverage to use. You may only use Claw if standing, and if you use Claw on the AV roll you may not use Piling On on the injury roll.

[dode74]

You know how, when you see an ant in your house, you think, "it's just one ant," but if you see a line of ants in your house you spring into action? You don't count the ants, or try to figure out what proportion of the whole colony they represent.

Actually I look for the colony and dump a load of poison on them. I'm not suggesting a cull of the complainers at all, you understand, I just don't like the analogy
A popular movement must be popular to be considered so, not just loud, or full of voices you respect. You are doubtless aware that ability at playing the game doesn't equate to ability at designing the game.

There's a lot of conventional wisdom to be turned on its ear, and now that FUMBBL is up to CRP, and with the advent of Cyanide BB, we've got a new think-tank for perpetual BB gaming that we didn't have before, and have spotted something new. Is that so hard to grasp?

When the vast majority of that "new experience" comes from an environment which is both flawed and emphasises the issue (TV-based MM) then I have a problem with that "something new". That's one reason I am distrustful of that experience.

So not only am I a tad suspicious of stats like that, I think that the truth is actually pretty close to the numbers you're throwing out, if you include a fractional value for CMB.

First, I'd like to see those numbers before making that kind of assessment. Second, I suspect the only place we're even close to it is TV-based MM, not leagues.

What was that solution again?

plasmoid's solution was to make PO another version of MB (+1 to either AV or injury roll), but retain the requirement to be adjacent to the player and go prone to use it.

A nerf to Claw (+1 on all Armour rolls against AV8+?) may be the best bet if you also buff fouling to make it easier to break AV, or to reduce the consequences for failing, in order to penalize high AV

That isn't a mechanism to equalise AV for all teams though. Ageing was AV neutral, so a similarly AV-neutral, on-pitch mechanic is required. If the problem is the stack rather than any individual skill then why reduce the effect of the stack on only a proportion of teams? Your system would see no change to the effect on AV7 or 8, but a reduction in the effect on AVs 9 and 10 - exactly the players claw is intended to target.
That said, I do think a buff to fouling is needed.

and in particular ClawPOMB on a team that can have a lot of it (as opposed to Necro or Norse).

Again, this is mainly an issue in TV-based MM. The prevalence of high AV bash teams at high TV increases the value of claw, so it gets taken more and you see it spammed. In leagues the mix of teams is far more even, putting value back on tackle and removing value from claw. Once more I have to say that I mistrust any data or opinion from TV-based MM which suggests a rule change is needed unless it can be shown to also be a problem in leagues. The environment, not the rules, should be the first thing to change. Games played, Elo, win%, whatever - there are many better ways of doing this than TV-based MM which brings a whole host of cherrypicking problems. And it is cherrypicking: you can tailor your TV - high or low - so that you know with a good degree of certainty exactly what type of team you want to play.

Dammit, I was trying to stay on topic

[Ghost]

I think Claw would have been great game design had PO not existed.
I think MB would have been great game design had PO not existed.
I think Claw MB would have been great game design had PO not existed.
The simple solution is to remove PO then everyone is happy.

This one I actually like quite a lot, and it has got one major thing going for it; The beauty of simplicity. Games without PO have been playtested a lot (I have played around 2.000 games of LRB 5 + I would estimate), and a great proportion of them without PO. Those games are much more enjoyable, tactical, fun and varied, than those happening with bashers kill-stacking. Bashers would still bash a lot harder than non-bashers (having general MB access, guard access, higher AV and ST) and there would still be Claw to keep Orcs and Dwarf in check. But it would not be; who wins the coin-toss and manages to take out 4 players in the first 3 turns anymore. There would be a lot more incentive to play the less played Hyrbids (and elves), there would be more variation, there would be more fun and challeging games. All in all a huge win for the game as a whole. I saw the suggestion of making PO a fouling skill. I actually like that one too. It makes sense fluff-wise, and it makes sense mechanic-wise. Bringing in an option for more deadly fouls by adding a skill. One that should have its own drawbacks. If those changes were made, we would have taken a huge leap in the right direction in my opinion. CRP would be a great rulesset then. And I am certain, that there would be more variation as a consequence.

An alternative; Don't allow a player to have both Claw and PO. Taking one, and you exclude the other. But in my experience, Orcs with massMBPO is a huge problem too (as you say Jimmy, POMB is not a great gamemechanic). And this suggestion would not address those teams. I like simply removing PO more.