Did you ever had the feeling that 1 in 6 is still a big chan

[Cooper]

Ok, this is what i think:


I generally hate it when a game is won or lost by sheer luck...

For instance: that ag 1 Treeman is catching a scattering ball just because the dice said he could...

Or that Mummy is intercepting your winning pass....

The way i see it is that the chance that a mummy cathes it is MUCH smaller the the average human lineman
SO:

I feel that the rule "everything works on a 6" should be changed...

I don't know into what, maybe into throwing a d10-10 or throwing two consecutive dice for wich the first has to be a 6, and after that a 4+ or something else depending what you normally had to throw...

It can also be i should start playing another game, because "it simply is a game that is won/lost by dice"

What do you think?

W

[roysorlie]

I think maybe it's terribly unlikely, that a proffesional footbal player actually only has 2/3 of a chance to pick up the ball. How hards is it to pick up a ball lying still on the ground. I'm pretty sure I would manage som 98/100 at least.

Interceptions are rare enough.

I think maybe we should just leave it as it is. Eh?

[Mestari]

Cooper:
Although I understand where your opinion comes from, there is one important counter-argument to that:

Most of the events your problems are related to are decided by AG and AG only.
Thus, if making likely events more likely and less likely events even more rare you would bias the scale heavily towards favouring agility teams.

The 1/6 chance of miraculous success / catastrophic failure is a suitable one, especially when bundled with rerolls:

1.With a reroll, a nearly certain event fails only 1/36.
2.And with a reroll a nearly doomed attempt succeeds 11/36.

The point 1. ensures that even the most skill-happy wood elf or skaven teams sometimes fail their fool-proof plans due to catastrophic failure. Making it more likely would really turn the game into elf-ball.

And the point 2. ensures that there is a point in trying, even if the chances are abysmally low. Lowering this probability (your main request) would pin down all the low-AG players. They would be no good for anything except blocking and exerting tackle zones.

I personally feel that a d6 with a natural 1's and 6's rule is the best way to go when the desire is to create an interesting, fast-paced boardgame such as Blood Bowl.

[Relborn]

Roysorlie ...

not much under this topic I agree, but I played for some years football by myself, and picking up an ball isn't even near an 98% chance ...

Although I am not one of the people, who think that every rule should be realistic, the 66% given in bloodbowl seem quite good to me.

My advice is, just try to pick up some balls in a friendly flag-football game and you'll see what I mean.

[Cooper]

OK, i want to point out that i am especially looking at the miraculous save...
I think it is good that a 1 makes your action fail, so that is not something i want to see changed, but i hate to see it when that opposing mummy who should have rolled an 8 (if you calculate it) gets away with it when rolling a 6....

W

[Mestari]

OK, i want to point out that i am especially looking at the miraculous save...

Still, I think the odds are good for that:

Even the worst players have a slight chance of succeeding at something, while the odds are still so bad that there's not much point in attempting unless it's a desperate situation.
If the odds would be d8,d10 or something like that, there would simply be no point in attempting anything.

Why should the elves be even more better at every ball-handling attempt than the low-AG guys? The AG5,Catch elf is still allowed to intercept 75% of all passes, but the mummys humble 16.66% chance should be lowered even further?

[Cooper]

Still, I think the odds are good for that:

Even the worst players have a slight chance of succeeding at something, while the odds are still so bad that there's not much point in attempting unless it's a desperate situation.
If the odds would be d8,d10 or something like that, there would simply be no point in attempting anything.


Well apparently we have another idea of what "slight chance" should mean...In my opinion (and experience) 16.6% is still quite a good chance...

W

[Marcus]

It can also be i should start playing another game, because "it simply is a game that is won/lost by dice"

What do you think?

If the game is about sheer luck, why do we see the same faces in the top 10 at every tournament?

If a mummy had a 1 in 100 chance to intercept a pass rather than a 1 in 6 - would you be more or less cheesed off when he intercepted a pass to win a game?

The exact chance of something happening is less important than the fact that that chance is known and can be mitigated against. There is a very very big difference between a game of risk in which skill is an element and a game of luck. The luck in bloodbowl applies equally on both sides of the table - the skillful coach is one who assesses their risks better than their opponent. Treading the line between minimising risk and maximising reward is a hallmark of a good coach.

[Cooper]

It can also be i should start playing another game, because "it simply is a game that is won/lost by dice"

What do you think?

If the game is about sheer luck, why do we see the same faces in the top 10 at every tournament?


Ah, but i never said it is a game of SHEER luck...I think a top-10-player will win almost allways from the number 50, but i wouldn't bet money on a game between the number 3 and number 11 (just calling some numbers, not checking the persons ofcourse)


If a mummy had a 1 in 100 chance to intercept a pass rather than a 1 in 6 - would you be more or less cheesed off when he intercepted a pass to win a game?

Well, ok that is a good point...but i feel that rolling a 6 on something that "cannot be done" is still too doable...

The exact chance of something happening is less important than the fact that that chance is known and can be mitigated against. There is a very very big difference between a game of risk in which skill is an element and a game of luck.

As stated, i think skill IS a very important part of Bloodbowl, but in my opinion luck plays a too large role

What do you think percentage wise? i would say 70skill-30luck?
I also think Risk is a bit another story, because you have to roll a lot more dice there, so the outcomes will be more like the statistics.


The luck in bloodbowl applies equally on both sides of the table - the skillful coach is one who assesses their risks better than their opponent. Treading the line between minimising risk and maximising reward is a hallmark of a good coach.

No argument there, but imagine this simple example; it's 2-2, my 8th-turn and i was recieving, i am passing an accurate pass on my AG4-Catch player who is in scoring range, the only player eligible for the intercept is your opponents mummy. with other words about to win 3-2
He rolls a 6...
walks a bit, handsoff to someone, runs a bit, passes, catches and scores...

This won't be too uncommon, but i;ld say you lost because you were unlucky, not because your opponent is a more skilled player


And i like to play games in which luck is a not too big factor...i am just thinking about how big this factor is in BB, and if i would like this to change...I hate to lose when i don't feel it is my fault...If i lose because the other played better than i did, great!

But maybe thta is just my stupid idea..
W

[Cooper]

Oh, i didn't use the quote thing properly, sorry,
W

[GalakStarscraper]

My thoughts.

When the same 10 or so faces also show up at the top of tabletop tournaments ....

When the same 10 or so players are at the top of the email leagues ....

the luck factor of the game is clearly not overriding the skill component.

Yes, luck is there, but its not there more than skill. From what I've seen the good coaches are the good coaches ... luck doesn't change that.

Thus based on available evidence the conclusion I come to is that skill clearly effects the game more than luck. The fact that some luck is in the game just means its not chess.

I'm entirely comfortable with mummies intercepting on 6 .... you shouldn't have given him the chance ... or why didn't you get Safe Throw for the thrower as a skill if its a concern ... etc ... there are game play strategy decision that very much override the luck component of the game. All in all I'm very pleased with the game's balance.

Galak

[Marcus]

No argument there, but imagine this simple example; it's 2-2, my 8th-turn and i was recieving, i am passing an accurate pass on my AG4-Catch player who is in scoring range, the only player eligible for the intercept is your opponents mummy. with other words about to win 3-2
He rolls a 6...
walks a bit, handsoff to someone, runs a bit, passes, catches and scores...

This won't be too uncommon, but i;ld say you lost because you were unlucky, not because your opponent is a more skilled player

Whenever the score is at 2-2 you can't say you've outplayed the opponent. Until you've scored on your own drive and then turned them over to score in theirs, you're not winning the game and any result is fair.

There's plenty of luck in poker. It's also one of the most skilled games their is. It's all about how you manage the luck that makes the difference.

[Mestari]

And when placing that mummy, your opponent made the decision of taking a 1/6 chance of thwarting your attempt in case you throw the ball.

My previous comments continue to apply - you can't make the already bad players even worse and say it's the righteous thing to do, unless you make it harder for the already good players to succeed too.
Or please specify why high-AG teams should retain their chances of accomplishing agility related tasks while the low-AG teams should lose their already small chances of accomplishin for example interceptions?

[Zombie]

No argument there, but imagine this simple example; it's 2-2, my 8th-turn and i was recieving, i am passing an accurate pass on my AG4-Catch player who is in scoring range, the only player eligible for the intercept is your opponents mummy. with other words about to win 3-2
He rolls a 6...
walks a bit, handsoff to someone, runs a bit, passes, catches and scores...

This won't be too uncommon, but i;ld say you lost because you were unlucky, not because your opponent is a more skilled player

I'd say that your skill is questionable if you threw over the mummy. You should have tried a path that was less risky, or if there was none, then one that was more risky but that didn't allow your opponent to score if it failed. Like someone else said, a lot of the skill involved in this game is risk management. You both knew that the mummy could intercept on a 6+. Maybe your opponent placed it there for a reason. It was your call to throw over it anyway, so you're the one to blame.

You can't take luck away from this game or it won't be Blood Bowl anymore. If you really must have no luck at all, maybe you should play chess.

[Cooper]

Obviously i don't have many people agreeing with me


Doesn't matter...

I want to make sure that you understand what i meant...
I never said skill is not important, i also said skill is more important then luck, but i feel luck plays a major role, while i think it should play a minor role.

And for my example...the fact that it is 2-2 in the last turn shows that both players are of about equal skill and the fact that the opponent made sure that there was no way of passing without a possible intercept shows that he is a good opponent, BUT
that one die-role made the difference between winning or losing...

I mean i think that both players are of about the same skill, but it is one role that determines the outcome of the game...

but indeed, maybe i should start playing (more) chess, as indeed that is one of my other favorite games


W