Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[Darkson]

Dode - my apologies - for some reason I thought I read this in the House Rules forum (that'll teach me to flick through threads to quickly).

[dode74]

Matt - I think that is the right question, and will endeavour to find out if it is the case.

Darkson - no worries

[mattgslater]

The big losers in the new rules are the positioning teams and the balance builds, except the Dodge-spammers. Back in the day, you could cut the body count against you to almost nothing by playing a tight positioning game that thwarted fouls. Now, you can thwart the fouls more easily than ever before, but that tight positioning game falls apart in the face of three ClawPOMBers. Three ClawPOMBers that don't add much to TV, in fact. Being better than your opponent avails you naught if your oppo just manages to get the right combination of Pows and 7+ rolls, and building to take advantage of your personal skills is impossible if you run into more than a little bit of it.

IMO, and I know I'm not alone, LRB6 is like the most delicious dish in the world, plus just a hint of dog poop. It should be wonderful, but it's completely unpalatable instead, because of one little thing.

I think the solution lies in a tax on skill-stacks, and/or or a nerf on the best stacks (possibly against PO or Claw's combo power), more than a buffing of competing skill-stacks, except perhaps anti-CPOMB stacks, which have to have independent utility (Blodge/SS/Fend comes to mind, but needs no buff). A hybrid approach might be good.

[Ghost]

I so agree with you Mattgslater. Very, very well said. I have been in the exact same discussions, and my gripe is exactly like yours - what the stacked odds of CPOMB does compared to the ease of getting the stack on MBash teams and the low TV it adds to the team. 180 TV for a fully bloomed beastman killer (Block, MB, PO, Claw, Frenzy, Tackle). The dramatic odds-increase of KO+ destroys variation at upper TVs in MMs, and the issue of stacked killers applies to all the fields of BB, except maybe TT, where such developed teams are uncommon and where you will have noone to play with, if you take full advantage of the rules (bashstacking).

You are allowed to blitz once every single turn. No skills impact the game (in such a negative way) as the bashstacking does.

It could have been so good. There are so many good things improved in LRB 5+ (CRP), yet one thing makes it a lot less enjoyable than it could have been, and kills of the variety.

Another possibility could be to hardcap the bashstacks (max 3 MBPO or max 2 CPOMB players on a team), er removing general S access on beastmen and general M access on CWs. The other teams, Nurgle primarily, would have to have their skills looked at too then, though.

[mattski]

Get rid of piling on and whoosh, problem solved. Take it as it come teams can breathe easier, bash will still play that way but won't be obliterated and coaches won't feel pressured into joining the arms race to clpomb and maybe as a result more varied team builds will happen again.

[dode74]

Higher player turnover was, I believe, an intended effect of the rules changes for perpetual leagues. If someone can show that cpomb is actually causing the game balance to be out of whack then there is a point. Otherwise it's just preference again.

Get rid of piling on and whoosh, problem solved. Take it as it come teams can breathe easier, bash will still play that way but won't be obliterated and coaches won't feel pressured into joining the arms race to clpomb and maybe as a result more varied team builds will happen again.

Excellent speculative "logic". Here's some too: remove PO and players won't die as easily, meaning they will reach higher levels and higher TVs. This will mean going deeper into spiralling expenses, meaning that when players do die (and they will eventually) teams won't have the cash to replace them, and won't be able to get that cash until several experienced players die bringing the team out of the high SE ranges and able to collect some cash. That will mean multiple games with either journeymen or a very tight roster, reducing the ability to absorb KOs and BHs during a game. Once the players have been replaced you skill them up and repeat the cycle. The "obvious" solution is to raise SE to allow for this, eventually turning the game into a contest of level 7 players and who rolls the most 1s, which is no fun at all.

My point from the tongue-in-cheek scenario above is that leaping to conclusions is both easy and unhelpful. Define the problem first and work to a solution step by step. It may turn out that your solution is the right one, but if you go step-by-step then you can show it.

[mattski]

Ok, then get rid of piling on and bring back +1 to fouls and voila, balance is restored again. The way that some teams are going Bbowl is headed to a glut of either ots which is a battle of who rolls the least 1s or clpomb kill teams. Of course this is an exaggeration but looking at the Fummbl cup I don't think that it is that much of an exaggeration. Blood is fine, hell it's in the name of the game but instead of huge cas totals being one of those 'do you remember when...' moments they are becoming more and more routine. And that is dull.

The problem has been defined: people (some of them) are getting bored. Teams are becoming boring. The game is becoming boring because one of the crucial parts of the whole experience (for some) of crafting teams with identities and histories is pointless. That is the problem. Now you and others may well not agree with it and that is fine, that is of course your choice but an attempt to create some kind of empirical basis for defining a problem in a game that we play for fun is too much like work for me (though as I am just starting out on a PhD in games in Tudor England maybe I should say that it is too much like study for me). The bottom line is that people are seeing less choice if they want to be competitive and maybe they are wrong and it is just how they are perceiving the problem but in cases like this, in fun and games and stuff, perception becomes the reality many more times than not.

I agree with matt that the rules are really close to being great and I am sure that for many people playing table-top they absolutely are and the game remains the silly old piece fluff that it always has but online I am seeing (and hearing, oooh more anecdotes) less people looking like they are actually having fun.

Edit: One of the biggest flaws in the whole of the game design that existed right from the get-go (imo of course) is tying player development to individual actions. This single decision meant spp farming and the creation of uber-players being inevitable. Thus anything which gives players an edge in causing cas too soon in their career as it were means that kill teams would always be more likely to spiral into the upper echelons. This is not to say that Ag teams don't also have the chance but wastage has tended to clip their wings. For the good of where the game is right now it would probably be better if clpomb dominated to such an extent that something had to be done about it. Bring back good old fashioned blood, you know the type I mean, when a player had to get his boots dirty to actually kick someone off the pitch!!

[dode74]

Ok, then get rid of piling on and bring back +1 to fouls and voila, balance is restored again.

Another leap

The problem has been defined: people (some of them) are getting bored. Teams are becoming boring. The game is becoming boring because one of the crucial parts of the whole experience (for some) of crafting teams with identities and histories is pointless. That is the problem.

I have no problem with you saying that is a problem, but when I ask why then the question is not "what would you do to make it fun again?", the question is "what has changed to make it boring?". Mattgslater has gone some way towards that with his "less variation in teams" argument. You seem to be saying something similar, and that is something which can actually be assessed (if I can get the data).

online I am seeing (and hearing, oooh more anecdotes) less people looking like they are actually having fun.

And I am seeing an increase in the number of players every day, both on FUMBBL and in FOL.

Regarding your edit, I can see your theoretical point but in practice the player development works. I do note the way you refer to high TV as "upper echelons" as if attaining that is a goal itself. Development and high TV are not the same thing. A developed team might be at high TV, but they might also be effectively managing their team to maintain a desired TV.

[Ghost]

Why do you keep comparing it to what was LRB 4? Why can't you accept, that some people want to bring the game a step forward, from the state it is in now? What does it have to do with if there is more or less variation than in LRB 4? This is about lack of variation in this state, the LRB 5+ (CRP). Take one look in the matchmakers, and you will see it for yourself. Please stop demanding that we gather a 100 page thesis around stats that please you. You don't see an issue, fine. Others do. It sounds to me, that you have so much invested in these arguements, that for you it is not about BB. It is about your pride.

Like Mattgslater so brilliant said; This is like the most delicious plate, just with a pile of poo detracting severely from the overall impression. It has improved since LRB 4 in many aspects, sure. But it can still be improved further.

[garion]

I think it is because people inlcuding myself found LRB4 to be a far better system, namely because of Traits, there were other flaws in that rule set dont get me wrong. But the game was more varied, less one dimensional and doubles skills really meant a lot to a team, now they dont so much, team development is boring, and the kill stack regardless of whether it is OP or not is just stupidly dull to play against.
Also as far as I am awar Dode didnt play LRB4 so is referencing it because Darkson and I keep saying this that and the other wee better in LRB4.

Also Dode, I have provided evidence for LRB4 so stop posting until you do your side of the data gathering, because you are the one that is holding this anlysis up at the moment, hehe

the question is "what has changed to make it boring?"

This has been answered by 3 or 4 people now. So why you keep asking is strange to me. The answer again is..... Skill developement is one dimensional, skill paths are too linear, all the teams now have a far to similar development path to eachother which has reduced team individuality. They are my main gripes, I do have others such as the rock paper sissor aspects that have been brought in.

Other people have said.... Kill stack is too dominant (they dont necessarily mean too powerful) I think they mean to widely used and accepted as the main way to play the game. Noobs love it because it will win them the odd game wih pure luck, experienced coaches use it because it has made attrition the main focus of many games and with superior tactical knowledge it is pretty darn hard to stop (see RandomOracles' team, Carnis' team, JimmyFantastics team bill Brasky's team, Stonetroll's team, Azure's team) I'm sure there are other examples, and many coaches in between feel there is nothing to do against it (regardless of whether they are right or wrong) so they join them, the odd person will stick to elves or skaven like me, because they are well suited for beating them.

edit: Also comes the problem of team development when you are not using a cpomb team, there is soooo much focus on building teams specifically for countering that skill combo, I have never seen so many Lizardmen teams with 6 blodge + guard saurus as i have right now, it is very sad that it has come to this.

Many coaches refuse to use it on account of how cheap a tactic it is and how stupidly dull those games are... me included. I had a Chaos Dwarf team that won something like 40 games drew 5 and lost 5. I retired them because I just felt it was too easy and not fun most of the time. I know other coaches that have also got bored with it.

so I don't care if it is well balanced in leagues or not, the problem is those games are just boring. I am also noticing the longer these discussions go on the more people that seem to be joining this side of the debate. If you go back and check the old old threads I have always been against this combo, so have great coaches like Flix that predicted this would happen before CRP even got released, as soon as he found out about CPOMB he begged Galak et al not to allow this to happen, he was ignored and just like so many other people probably got called a pixel hugger and stuff like that, but now people really seem to be firmly against this stupid kill stack, and many people that played LRB4 miss the way that restricted skill options actually led to more interestingly developed teams.

[Ghost]

I absolutely agree with you Garion, don't get my wrong (which I don't think you got anyway, but hey). But to me it really is rather irrelevant, if there is now more or less variation than in LRB 4. The fact is, that variation is lacking now, whether or not it was lacking (to the same degree) in LRB 4 too. I want the game to be improved from its current state, that last edition of the rules. And that, to me and in my humble opinion and all, means bashstacking have to be looked at. The odds increase is exponential when stacking, and not linear. You don't find skills stacked with such impact in other areas. Sure you can stack throwing skills on a thrower, but you don't throw for 16 turns a game, like you do blitzing. Good players pass as little as ever possible. And the huge use of bashstacking is clearly evidenced by the vast majority of teams at higher TVs being basher - the other teams simply avoid going there, and with a good reason. Primarily the hybrids can't sustain in the blockwar. I don't see why we need to gather numbers, of how many teams of each race was being played exactly before and now. I want more variation too, as that is fun to me - this is about improving CRP further, and if that means going back to some of what was LRB 4, then fine. But it needs to be done with CRP in mind.

I don't understand why Dode74 now want to do the comparison with the variation in LRB 4. It really is rather irrelevant. What matters is the (lack of) variation now.

All the points you put out Garion I agree with, just to be clear of what my stance is.

[garion]

Oh also just as a side note. I found it amusing on this epsidoe of 3DB that they said - "we are up to season 3 in our league now and Chaos are completely dominating, they won the league and they are in the cup final". Plasmoid also agreed here too (he was on the show).

You see, most leauges don't run continuously like this, so it seems as though some TT leagues that do are now seeing the effects of said combo as well.

[Ghost]

Yeah. Well, I would expect TT leagues to have less matured teams, and that people would not exploit the rules in regards to bashstacking to the same degree. That kind of abuse is normally ironed out to some degree in a friendly environment, where you play just as much for the social thing, as for actually winning the game. That it now appears in TT just makes it even worse. In Internet-play you can expect the rules to be exploited to the fullest. So you have to address the rules, if you want to make that experience more enjoyable - you can't really hate the players for making use of the rules, you have to hate on certain parts of the rules

But yeah - I agree with you Garion. I think part of why the bashstacking was allowed at the playtesting, was because it was actually not really being tested. Not a lot of those teambuilds was being used for gathering the stats, if I recall my reading somewhere correct.

[dode74]

Ghost - as garion said, other people are making the comparison. I'm happy to leave LRB4 alone but it is a point of reference which people say was more fun, so it is a reasonable standard. I'm certainly not saying to go back, but I am asking what was better about it. Sure, we can look at variation on its own, but that doesn't really tell us much about where we want that variation to be. By comparing to a satisfactorily varied ruleset (LRB4) we can set a target.

garion -
I did play a little LRB 4 but not enough to form a proper comparison (I stopped at 2nd edition for a few years). That's why I'm more than happy to take on the experience of those who did play a lot of it. I'm also aware of the inertia that comes with experience, which is one reason I'm not a fan of the "I preferred it" argument.

stop posting until you do your side of the data gathering, because you are the one that is holding this anlysis up at the moment, hehe

I think you'll find that is Cyanide holding things up
I should be getting the FOL data any day now and will ask for player data once I get it. I'll post all I want in the meantime
I'm also doing some work on passing, as I said, so I'll be posting that soon enough too.

This has been answered by 3 or 4 people now. So why you keep asking is strange to me.

I'm not asking it again. mattski started talking about the "less fun" thing again, which is itself unquantifiable. I was clarifying that this has actually been defined and quantified by several posters with help from you and your stats, which will help us to move to the next step of comparison when/if I get the stuff from Cyanide.

I don't care if it is well balanced in leagues or not, the problem is those games are just boring

You're finding the league games boring as well? (personally I have found no issues in leagues with this combo, even leagues going past 100 games). I ask because if both league and MM are a problem then there may be a rules problem; if it's just MM then it's a problem with that environment. I say it "may be" a rules problem because it may also be a perceptual one. Players are meant to die (to maintaint the viability of a perpetual league), and the fact that off-pitch attrition (ageing) was removed meant that it had to be replaced by on-pitch attrition. If people aren't liking the way that on-pitch attrition works then there are several options including, but not limited to:
1. Bring back an ageing-type mechanic where players can be removed between games.
2. Increase the capability of teams to kill while reducing the capability of individuals to do so.
The first is easy - roll back to LRB4 ageing and remove the stack. The second is far more difficult. It requires a nerf to the CPOMB stack (and plasmoid's suggestion is by far the best one imo - it maintains the relative casualty rates at various AVs while reducing the overall rates) and a boost to some team method of killing, fouling being the obvious choice (as it would be particularly good for the teams with cheap linemen). The fact remains that the attrition rate has to be as it is, though, or TVs would climb too high, so it would need testing to get it right.
Yes, this is similar to what mattski suggested, and as I said before it may turn out that his suggestion is the right one. The fact is that without looking at the data to determine what the problem actually is (in the manner we have already suggested - looking at the skill distributions) then we can't necessarily say with any confidence that it is the right thing to do, and that is my argument. Not that no change is needed, or even that the changes suggested are necessarily wrong, but that we don't even know if there is an actual or just a perceptual problem yet, and without looking into it coming up with solutions is a waste of time.

I am also noticing the longer these discussions go on the more people that seem to be joining this side of the debate.

Yet another appeal to say how many are on what side? I thought we got past that several pages back. None of the metrics are trustworthy in this regard - the polls, your opinion, my opinion, whatever. I've had several e-mails stating that people who previously thought there was a problem now see that there isn't - that's just as valid as your own "I'm noticing that" statement. Can we drop that appeal to popularity stuff now?
Regarding the 3db podcast, OCC has run for 10 seasons (about to be 11, with over 100 games played) and has been won by Chaos once, Orcs once, Lizards once (probably about to be twice) and WElves 7 times.

[Ghost]

Alright Dode. Thank you for that clarification. But I simply think, that if saying; "that there is as much variation now, as there was in LRB 4, and so everything now is fine" - is where you are going, then it is a false conclusion. To me it is about improving the current state, CRP. Where variation is lacking, as evidenced by all numbers from the matchmakers, on Fumbble and Cyanide as well. I understand your reasons for comparing it with LRB 4 variation better now, but end of the day - to me it really is irrelevant. What matters is (lack of) variation now, and how to bring that back. In my opinion it means addressing a certain issue, that makes more teams competitive and gives reason for more variation in teambuilds over each race too.