Vamp the Necros?

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Maybe when the next version of Blood Bowl comes along, if it does ever, the smartest move will be to ignore veteran coaches and make a new game altogether.

This is awesome.

[Patchwork]

Maybe I can't get one of them to play Settlers of Catan and they'll be born again.

Even if it didn't change anyones opinion still worth it just to play Settlers of Catan

[Jural]

You are stretching farther than usual just to disagree with me for the sake of disagreement.

Huh? I'm stating my opinion. I don't agree with you. I'm sorry if that tweaks you or makes you angry. I won't lose any sleep over it (I may actually get a smile or two out of it, hope you don't mind) but it wasn't my intention to stretch the truth so that I could be one of the 100 people in line to disagree with you.

To the contrary, I usually agree with you, and mostly do here in this thread too. I think you have the right solution to Balancing Blood Bowl (starting from the ground up.) I disagree this is what the community actually wants. Just like Lyncanthrope, though possibly for entirely different reasons.

The entire purpose of the Vault and PBBL was to achieve better "balance" in the rules. So don't hand me this malarkey about it being a minority of munchkins trying to bend the rules for their fav teams.

The Vault and PBBL were not designed by the individual players, and were not designed by the community as a whole. They were designed by JJ, completely overhauled by Tom, and watched over pretty heavily by people I respect. Yes a ton of feedback was solicited, and much of it was self-serving to various teams. But I don't question the integrity of those involved. Galak, JJ, Darkson, Doubleskulls, almost all of the playtesters really.

Do you smoke crack? So basically what you're saying is that all the tournament goers out there who want balanced competitive play actually want imbalance and min/maxing and munchkinism and are a bunch twits who can't win for real?

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about tournaments here. I don't know of any changes put forth by tournament players for balance or any reason. I'm not part of that scene.

Did a search for posts by Jural including the word 'balance.'

Ta-da! 3rd one down had this:

ELF: For balance, I would say Morg (catcher.) But that's just ridiculous! So, fine as is. I originally wrote down Morg (Catcher) then I slapped myself and was more sensible afterwards.

So wow. You're discussing balance of Inducements. You posted a lot in that thread...not just that quote. And all the time you're talking about balance. And that was just the first 10 results that came up!

In this case, I talking about balancing two different rules (where Morg fits in on one team vs. another in a modified star system.) I'm not talking about balancing Blood Bowl!

If you did a search on some cooking forums, you might find me talking about balancing the sour flavor with the sweet flavor in a pork recipe... I don't think that's any more relevant to balancing Blood Bowl.

Should I keep looking for all the times you have talked about rules tweaking for balance?

One thing I can't understand- why are there no thrower star players in Blood Bowl?

Throwers (quarterbacks) are the stars of American Football, and were prevalent as stars in the earlier editions of Blood Bowl.

Now I accept that blitzers are more famous than throwers in Blood Bowl (More than accept it, I think it's fitting for the game, and enjoyable), but I can't figure out why there are zero throwers!

I figure it had to be a decision somebody made- but it seems odd to me. As a matter of fact, having throwers available to at least some of the teams really would balance out some of the bash/agility imbalance which is perceived in the game, as throwers really add options to teams. Imagine a Chaos team with a thrower... everyone is happy, the chaos player who can now move the ball, the opponent who is facing the thrower instead of Lord Borak...

This one was a thread started by you. In search of balance again, I see.

I agree, I think the inclusion of thrower star players would really help Blood Bowl. And part of my reasoning is balance. And maybe I'm partially doing this because it favors my pet teams over others! I hope not, but it's possible

You munchkin you.

If you just want to argue, you simply PM me and call me a dickhead or something. But that was a sad attempt.

Hmm, I think it's pretty clear who wanted to argue. And for the record, I'm not sure who PM'd you and called you a dickhead, but it wasn't me.

[Jural]

Maybe when the next version of Blood Bowl comes along, if it does ever, the smartest move will be to ignore veteran coaches and make a new game altogether.

This is awesome.

The funny thing is (as I said elsewhere) I agree with a lot of your points. I generally read your posts for the entertainment and the fresh perspective. And sometimes you have solutions which border on genius.

I also find it funny that you constantly read into my posts to try and find conflict or a slight. Well not only me. I'm also amused that a person can post "Why don't you read what I say, I'm not saying that" 1,000 times and never once imagine that they themselves may be a poor communicator or may have problems comprehending the posts of others.

Perhaps throughout the Star Wars series, this is what Chewbacca is saying over and over again...

Han: What's out there Chewie?

Chewie: Grraaaaagrrgrgrhaaght*

*I already told you it's a freaking tie fighter, you moron! Why can't you understand the extremely clear words coming out of my mouth! Damint, every day with you...

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Yeah whatever dude.

I'm completely misreading you. You totally didn't tell me that the people crying for balance actually don't want balance.

Uh huh. You respect those 5 people then, but everyone else but them and you who talks about balance is just trying to help their favorite team?


Talking to you isn't like being Chewie. It's like talk to someone who changes his opinions to the opposite of whatever I write no matter what I say.

I say up, you say down.

So let me ask then. If you agree with me that a redo is what is needed from the bottom up, then why were you so fervently defending LRB to me just last week? Do I need to dig up the threads? I will, it's easy.

I would love it if you would explain to me why there 500+ threads in the General forum alone all about "balance" if it's not what the community is after? That's not even dipping into the Vault and New Concept forums.

People on this forum and SG forums almost always talk about how to better balance the game. That includes you, Tom Darkson and all the people that I respect as well. And whether you want to admit it or not, the current rules owe a lot to people not on your list of creators. JJ stole a lot of rules, broke them and stuck them in the game.

But it's really not about whether or not LRB is the most balanced Blood Bowl ever.

Just because I bought the least dead goldfish from the store doesn't mean I bought a healthy goldfish.

[TuernRedvenom]

Maybe I can't get one of them to play Settlers of Catan and they'll be born again.

See, I played Settlers (it really isn't that brilliant, but it's a good gateway game) and Puerto Rico and Tigris & Euphrate and Alhambra and Carcassonne and... I am a member of the local board gaming club and own plenty of boardgames (from euros to wargames) myself.
I think lrb 5 is the best balanced and most fun ruleset of Blood Bowl up to date. No game does what Blood Bowl does for me. BB is now more then ever my favourite by far! It gives me a very tactical wargame like risk/reward system combined with rpg like player development.
As you say, it is not perfectly balanced. But it doesn't need to be. Sure a 100 TV Chaos team is not equal to a 100 TV Wood Elf team. But that's fine as coaching skill is still the more important factor. The game is balanced enough to make other factors (both luck and coaching skill) more decisive then the inherent imbalance of the game.

Lrb 5 did create more balance. And a better game. Making a game zany is easy. Give every team 2 random secret weapons. Make it so that every coach that rolls double 1's is allowed to cast a Zap spell. ... House rules can cover these easily. However house rules shouldn't be needed to balance the game.

I for one believe that BB has a lot more going for it then just beer and pretzel random wackiness. IMO no other game does what the current edition of blood bowl does better (or at least, I haven't encountered that game yet). They all do it differently.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Again.

You say all that relative to what has come in the past.

What came in the past was not a game searching for competitive balance.

I agree that LRB 5 is the most balanced rulebook in Blood bowl yet. Is it a rule set that is optimal for competitive play?
No. It could be vastly improved.

Why is this like feeding a pill to my dog?


Seriously and for the last time I am not saying LRB is severely broken.

[TuernRedvenom]

You are missing the point. I do not agree with this:

No. It could be vastly improved.

It could be improved, sure. But not vastly.

What came in the past was not a game searching for competitive balance.

Indeed it wasn't, but the basic game mechanics are solid. Perfect competitive balance isn't needed to make it a very good competitive game, a minimum standard of balance is needed though. And IMO (although I agree there are still some minor glitches) that minimum has been reached.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Hey Jural, notice how Teurn isn't acting like an ass while he disagrees with me? Notice how I give him the same courtesy.

Indeed it wasn't, but the basic game mechanics are solid. Perfect competitive balance isn't needed to make it a very good competitive game, a minimum standard of balance is needed though. And IMO (although I agree there are still some minor glitches) that minimum has been reached.

I agree that a minimum standard balance is needed, but I have to ask you where is that in the game? IMO (and what I really do see as fact) is that at the very basic core (players attributes and cost) there is no balance...and worse the numbers are nearly arbitrary and the costs subjective.

I gave some examples to Joe in a PM but some of them were Wood Elf speed vs. Skaven speed. Human catchers vs. Elf Catchers, and Troll AG vs Zombie AG. Some of the reasons for these numbers is balance, and some of the reason is fluff but in the end you end up with a range of numbers that is mostly meaningless. The range of attributes is 1-6. If AG 1 means you are completely inept at nearly everything why are zombie more agile than trolls? Same with ST. Why are human catchers as weak as halflings?
And once you get to cost as I said, one of JJ's steps in creating cost was guessing...educated guessing but guessing none the less. And none of that touches start up skills.

That's as finite as you can go, right down to individual stats, and that stuff affects everything that grows out of it. So, a rookie Undead team is not equal to a rookie Halfling team...and yet the have the same rating.

So I have to ask, where do you see that minimum standard of balance?

[Jural]

I'm honestly not understanding what you're taking offense at from the first post. I'm going to send you a PM to try and rectify this.

[Marlow]

Heroclix? really? This is what I am talking about. I think some of you have about as much idea of what balance is as heroclix player. It's infuriating

So you do not like Clix then?

Well if the problem is that the only game experience they have is Clix, MtG and Grandma Wendy there might be hope.

Maybe I can't get one of them to play Settlers of Catan and they'll be born again.

I play a lot of games; Settlers, Transamerica, Risk, Runebound, D&D, MtG, BB and sometimes even 40k!

The game does not need to have every team equal.
Rock-Paper-Scisors are all equal; but one is better than others depending on what your opponent is player.

All that Tackle on your Dwarf team is not much use against Orcs but great against Elves.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Heroclix? really? This is what I am talking about. I think some of you have about as much idea of what balance is as heroclix player. It's infuriating

So you do not like Clix then?

What is strategic about buying more powerful pawns?

The game does not need to have every team equal.

Balance means equality. Something should be equal. Do I mean all teams need to be identical? No. But some part of the teams should be a quantifiable number than can be equal to the same component of the opposing team. That's the definition of balance.


Where is the balance in Blood Bowl?

Rock-Paper-Scisors are all equal; but one is better than others depending on what your opponent is player.

They are all better than one and worse than one. Therefore equal. Where is that in Blood Bowl?

All that Tackle on your Dwarf team is not much use against Orcs but great against Elves.

Except you forget to mention the AV 9 and Block that is universally good and better than all teams. But we could go on like this.
What you're missing is that Saurus have a value of 80K. So do Black Orcs and yet they don't have the same value in stats. Likewise high Elf catchers and Skaven Blitzers have the same value. Where did this value calculation come from? It came from JJ's best guess. That's not quantifiable balance IMO.

Lets get a real formula for player value and a quantifiable method for pricing skills.

[Jural]

So let me ask then. If you agree with me that a redo is what is needed from the bottom up, then why were you so fervently defending LRB to me just last week? Do I need to dig up the threads? I will, it's easy.

For the record, I really do like LRB 5. I think it almost completely captures what this edition of Blood Bowl should be. I'd like some changes and tweaks sure, but I think it's way better than the original LRB or the quagmire after DeathZone.

But I also think Blood Bowl could be more. It underrepresents it's fluff. The background of the game is one of crazy football where halflings get smashed, elves are throwing the ball around like crazy, dwarves bring chainsaws on to the field and the Chaos All-Stars are travelling back in time to win championships.

That level of craziness is just missing in the game, and I think it's designed into this edition, with it's limiting 4 stats, crazy reliance on a d6 for odds, over-reliance on the block skill, and the incredible shrine built to the attribute strength. But to change those things, you need to break down the foundation of the game, rebuild all of the teams up individually, and possibly change core mechanisms of the game itself... like turnovers.

I would love it if you would explain to me why there 500+ threads in the General forum alone all about "balance" if it's not what the community is after? That's not even dipping into the Vault and New Concept forums.

People on this forum and SG forums almost always talk about how to better balance the game. That includes you, Tom Darkson and all the people that I respect as well.

I guess I have to say that over the past few months, most of the discussions on TBB have been intelligent and well-reasoned. I have seen a lot of talk about balance, although I wouldn't have identified it as such... In the past few months, some wacky ideas, and some bad ones, but all in all not as aggressive and inflammatory as they were when the Vault was going on, or in it's first year.

But I think many times balance issues are raised, it is not with an eye towards the overall balance of the game. It's with an eye towards taking out tactics they can't beat, teams they can't stop, etc.

For example- people trying to change orcs because they are too good and break the game... Despite the orc team not being a top 5 team in terms of wins. The team is a paper tiger, but it really scares a lot of people. And let's not start with dwarves... (which I personally believe should be changed, but not for reasons of balance.) Or changing assasins. Or nerfing the pathetic Ogre team.

And what do these people almost always say? It's unbalanced.

But it's really not about whether or not LRB is the most balanced Blood Bowl ever.

Just because I bought the least dead goldfish from the store doesn't mean I bought a healthy goldfish.

Ok, you win, that's better than my Chewbacca analogy

[Dark Lord (retired)]

I think the problem is we agree but not quite enough...or something.


I want the same thing you want. A game that lives up to the fluff but is still competitive.


What I am saying in a nutshell is that it possible to do, but not in the current form. The focus is all wrong.

You can only put so much detail into a game. At a certain point you get feature creep or kitchen sink-itus.

The detail currently is all in balancing the inherently unbalanced teams. (IMO a futile attempt anyway because the best you can do is eyeball it...because the teams were built by JJ "fudging it"

If we started from a point where all the teams were balanced from square one the detail could be in the fun stuff.

Most people I know don't find accounting, cherry picking and calculating TV to be fun. What is fun is rolling to dice to see who blew up.

So you make the unfun parts intrinsically balanced so the mayhem can be detailed.

[Marlow]

What is strategic about buying more powerful pawns?

There is a stratagy is using my five pawns to defeat your Queen.

Balance means equality. Something should be equal.
Lets get a real formula for player value and a quantifiable method for pricing skills.

If there was a perfect formula for player cost then would rerolls not cost the same for every team?

You could use the Human Lineman as your Average Player and have a formula so that every player is build from that
AV/MV: 3-8 +/-10k; 9 +20k
Strength: +/-1 20k; +2 +50k
ect

However some combinations (All High AV & Block, four ST5 Players) is just better than others. If you do not have a fudge factor to balance it out then you will end up with everyone playing the same teams.