Forget Dwarves, what do Norse need for balance

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:35 pm

MistWraith wrote:Slayers get the extra AV because in Blood Bowl AV is a combined Toughness & armor stat. And, quite frankly the wimpiest most girlydwarf Slayer out there is tougher than the bigest baddest human (Thrud excluded).

I was just saying that it'd be easy to fit AV8 norse into some fluff. They'd simply be as tough as an ordinary human blitzer.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:43 pm

MistWraith wrote:Some of the better PBEM or a table top league would be a far better example, especially if they had a schedule.

MBBL Norse record ... 4 teams played in 3 seasons:

31 games
16 wins
15 losses
51.61% win rate

42 TD fors
38 TD against
66 CAS for
70 CAS against

That overall win rate put them higher than:
Goblin, Halfling, Chaos, Necromantic, Chaos Dwarf, Dark Elf, Human, Khemri, Lizardmen, Orc, Rotters, Skaven, Undead, and Wood Elf

The MBBL has not shown the Norse/Dwarf issue yet. I'm sure its out there ... we just are not seeing it. Dwarf teams in the MBBL have a 57.84% win rate.

Galak

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:51 am

GalakStarscraper wrote: MBBL Norse record ... 4 teams played in 3 seasons:

31 games

4 teams, 31 games means that they average 7-8 games per team, right?

I tend to think that the Norse/Dwarf issue shows up only after teams have developed - at which point their blocking advantage vanishes while their problem: low AV for the Norse and low MA and AG for the dwarves starts to cause a lot more problems than previously.

shaniepoo · Post by **shaniepoo** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:35 am

But while all other teams are using their 1 skill roll to purchace block, the norse team can start to develop from their 1st skill roll.

Im not saying that this is a solution to their crap AV but it sum'what makes up a bit of the disasvantage of low AV.

B.B.B · Post by **B.B.B** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:21 am

Theres nothing wrong with the norse team, there maybe not the easiest team to use however i've used them for a while and am yet to feel there significantly weaker than other teams there blitzers and lineman are amongst the best availiable which balances the almost redundant catchers and throwers. however i haven't used them in a long term league though just cause a online league shows them weaker is no reason for a change

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:11 pm

Mestari wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote: MBBL Norse record ... 4 teams played in 3 seasons:

31 games

4 teams, 31 games means that they average 7-8 games per team, right?

I tend to think that the Norse/Dwarf issue shows up only after teams have developed - at which point their blocking advantage vanishes while their problem: low AV for the Norse and low MA and AG for the dwarves starts to cause a lot more problems than previously.

So Norse peak early, and other teams peak late in the TR cycle. If you want to fix this, then you will need to redesign all the teams.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:25 pm

Why?

Trying to slightly improve those teams abilities in the long run is a good topic to discuss.

But definitely no ST access to the linemen.

Andreas of Loren · Post by **Andreas of Loren** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:39 pm

I follow the line that if i ain't broke don't fix it.

Looking at the team rosters as a whole the norse sit snuggly within the contexts of the game.

They follow their racial characteristics and the fact that they like a good brawl.

Nobody expects Norse to be high scoring teams but they fair well in tourney play, and even if they start to wilt in long leagues, that is the nature of the team, and also a chance for the coach to improve his/her tactical acumen to the full. That's what makes playing such fun.

We all love to win leagues in the long run, but there's a lot to be said for the coach that takes the challenge and finishes reasonably positioned by the end of a season.

miguel77 · Post by **miguel77** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:16 pm

I beleive the norse a already a well balanced team, I think if u started tinkerer with the roster it could become overowered.

swilhelm73 · Post by **swilhelm73** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:27 am

A few points here...

My question was what could be done to improve the Norse roster was focusing on how they do in the medium to long term, 10+ games specifically, which is, not surprisingly when they also tail off. So even if Norse were winning every short term tourny out there, it doesn't address the issue of longer term play for which I started this thread.

This means, ideally, that any suggestion for improvement would focus more on a longer time period to really have an effect - and I tried to tailor most of my suggestions in that vein.

Additionally, I raised the point, that seems to have been completely overlooked, that there was a significant change to Piling On in the last BBRC. Norse Blitzers, thanks to their having jump up were simply the perfect players to use with PO. Now, the change was certainly needed, but that means that said change weakens this roster more then any other also.

As a matter of fact, from the FUMBBL data again, in the time since I started this thread, Norse have dropped from slightly better CAS inflicters then Amazons, to slightly worse.

I simply don't see how a side that is (out of the official, non stunty teams) 15th in winning percentage AND 10th in CAS ratio is a balanced team. By comparison, btw, Dwarves are 8th in winning percentage and 2nd in CAS ratio.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:01 pm

If you change norse now, because they are 15th, you can next change another team because they are then 15th and so on until in a while you can change the Dwarf team because they are then 15th etc. Even when this game is completely balanced one team will end up 15th in FUMBL stats!

The game is quite well balanced right now and Norse are not very unbalanced to the point of unplayable so why start changing?

R

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:28 pm

Redfang wrote:If you change norse now, because they are 15th, you can next change another team because they are then 15th and so on until in a while you can change the Dwarf team because they are then 15th etc. Even when this game is completely balanced one team will end up 15th in FUMBL stats!

The game is quite well balanced right now and Norse are not very unbalanced to the point of unplayable so why start changing?

Agreed, but same goes for Dwarfs ...
*ducks*

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:50 pm

why don't we just agree that some teams are fast out the blocks but tail off quickly and other teams are built for the war, not the battle...

it might be frustrating to see a good team go backwards in a league of AG5 elves... but it is equally frustrating for a rookie Elf team to work out which player with Block they should be hitting first...

it doesn't mean the game is unbalanced, it just means you should tailor your team choice to the time and place.... Norse/Amazons for tournaments and Undead/Orcs for leagues seems to be the most predominant tendency at the moment and I can understand why...

all teams are capabale of winning the occasional game, but certain teams are more likely to do well in a 30+ game league... that is why in the real world, teams that win the league are often not the same as the teams that win the cups...

kadu-c · Post by **kadu-c** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:28 pm

swilhelm73 wrote:Cheaper Rerolls - if Zons get supercheap RRs, Norse should get them too

Zons don't have access to Big Guys, "supercheap" rerolls are needed to cope with ST4 or more players to reroll Blocks.

Sputnik · Post by **Sputnik** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:48 pm

This means, ideally, that any suggestion for improvement would focus more on a longer time period to really have an effect - and I tried to tailor most of my suggestions in that vein.

Additionally, I raised the point, that seems to have been completely overlooked, that there was a significant change to Piling On in the last BBRC. Norse Blitzers, thanks to their having jump up were simply the perfect players to use with PO. Now, the change was certainly needed, but that means that said change weakens this roster more then any other also.

Now you might mix up two things.

A) By referring to PO you talk about the active part of Norse, more specific the bashy part. PO on a Norse blitzer was nice because of jump up (PO was nice anyway

). Honestly, a Norse blitzer with PO/jump up/ST3 seems to get it done (one skill). But a mummy with PO/MB/ST5 (one skill) is a bit of a different story, don't you think? So much for the previous version of PO...anyway, the Norse may have lost a step there (but not as much as other teams, believe me).

which brings me to B) the passive resistance to inevitable death

. In the long term opponents teams pick up MB and/or claws and guard etc...thus the low AV of 7 obviously becomes more and more of a factor. Together with other teams picking up block this means that more blocks end up with a bothdown result and the opponent remains standing next to your Norse player, ready to fight back.

If you don't change your style of play during your team history, most of your teams will suffer (or think of all the dodge players in an environment more and more tackle heavy, for example). So this is not Norse specific. Yes, I know that there are teams being good early on and others fading out after a while, but my impression on the Norse is that some coaches stick to their bashy style for too long and fail to develop a different strategy together with the skills around it as support for later league play. Maybe the last part should at least help you to get over the 20+ games hump.

Sputnik

Talk Fantasy Football

Forget Dwarves, what do Norse need for balance

So, what should Norse get to make them a team that can still be competitive after the first ten games?