Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[Dinaturz]

Dinaturz, as has been said to me on many, many occasions, if you don't like it, ignore it.

You know, you cannot ignore something that's official if you are playing with other people.
Expecially if these people are from all over the world, like in fumbbl and using online clients in general...

[Dinaturz]

let me see if my score is ok: the core of the proposals is a choice between a *hard* TR cap and a *soft* cap, also known as "TBB Package".
At last, there is the chance to post an alternative proposal.


The hard cap is the most frustrating thing I ever heard.
Basically, if a team at the end of a game goes over the max TR possible, it has to fire as many players as needed to be again below the limit.

There is already a hard cap for players (7 skills max), but it's not so punitive. In this case it makes sense, it's more than understandable and for me works fine.


Then there is the soft cap.

Apparently it gives the impression of a more balanced solution and it is going to get most of the preferences, but in my opinion it is not so much better than the hard cap.

1) Removing Aging + Nigglings Rolls each half: This will affect mostly the low armoured teams, who are mostly suffering injuries during matches.
Since bashing teams have usually also AV8 (at least), it's clear how easy will be for such teams develop as wanted (being dice friendly...).
Who gains? Dwarves (all), Chaos, Orcs and bashing teams in general
Who looses? Elves (all), Amazons, Norse and low AV teams

2) Removing Aging + Negative Winnings: Here also, if your players are healty there is no need to recruit new ones, so who cares of money?
Who gains? Dwarves (all), Chaos, Orcs, Undead (all, they can recruit killed players for free).
Who looses? Elves (all), Amazons, Norse and expensive teams.

3) Apothecary freebooting + Negative Winnings: sure, to have an apo for 10K only gives a boost to fragile and expensive teams like Wood Elves in the early matches, but later they will need him to save precious players, draining all the resources...
Addiction!
Exactly like heavy drugs: they gives a sense of power at the beginning and then drive you to the grave... ^_^'
Who gains? Short Run: Elves, Amazons, Norse; Long Run: Dwarves (all), Undead (having no apo they can save money).
Who looses? Long Run: Elves (mostly Wood), Amazons, Norse and low AV teams.


Now, it seems to me that these proposed rules are going all towards bashing and high armoured teams.
IMHO, in leagues from medium up to very large, this will lead towards the dead of agile teams because of suffucation from debts or by a boring eternal TR ~150, never growing and never going below.
And going also towards the solitude of heavy armoured teams whose coach will have to fire players in order to have someone to play against (unless they will play each other).
In very small leagues besides, agile and much scoring teams will overrun slow teams taking advantage of the hired apo.

Another possible (and not so far from reality) scenario is a complete separation between high and low armoured teams.
Because of nigglings rolls each half and expensive apos, no agile team will play against bashy teams knowing how probably hard will be their future. This is already happening in large leagues like "Open" in Fumbbl, but imo this trend will be even more visible.

Conclusion:
We are here discussing about this solutions because the game's owner said so.

But, i have the strong impression that this discussion is going in a wrong way.
It seems to me that the problem lies on the amount of skills each player can achieve, because are the skills who kill the tactical options (correct me if I misunderstood).
So, sounds to me more logical to work in this direction.

It could be possible, for instance, to change/fix the spp table, so that it would take longer for the player to gain a new one (I see how races sterting with skills have an advantage, though)
Actually, I see these proposals as a patch that tries to work around the problem instead of solving it.

marco (who hopes to have opened a little window to let new air in...)

[Thadrin]

I think its better to look at it as forcing the agile teams - who's players get better faster to cycle their players more.

When was the last time you saw a truly game-breaking dwarf?
When was the last time you saw a truly game-breaking elf?

Its MUCH easier for an elf team to replace a decent player than for a dwarf team to do likewise. Costwise there is practically no difference, but elves gain skills much more easily and faster than any "bashy" player can.

In short, these rules will really hurt any bashy team who lose a player, as he will be practically impossible to replace.

On number two you are simply plain WRONG. Removing aging helps the high SPP players survive longer, as it removes one thing that can stop them. Negative winnings hurt EVERYONE equally, but as a bashy team has a much harder time replacing key players, it is in fact Bashing tems who are hurt more by this if that player ages.

[GalakStarscraper]

Just to be clear on this after a lot of debate.

Its got decent support in some way or another ... 35% against ... with 60% in favor of some or all.

thus comes testing.

Now I'm not saying this will be figured out by the 2004 Rules Review.

Both my leagues should go live with the package with the next 1 1/2 months. So we start testing and see what happens.

If I had to pick ... I'd like to do the following:
1) Start testing and for the 2004 Rules Review just change to use the 18 result scaled handicap posted earlier in this thread.
2) If testing through October looks promising, make the package or varient of it officially experimental and test it for another year.

I'm not in favor of ever allowing untested changes into the game. However, I believe this whole hurts Elves fears to be incorrect for a lot of reasons (some for the reasons that Thrads listed) ... but I want to see it in action.

I'm easily swayed by data ... if I see AG teams suffering I'll agree with all that's been said. Guess the real answer is to play Goblins and Flings because all these rules will pretty much never apply to your team eh? ...

Galak

[Dinaturz]

I think its better to look at it as forcing the agile teams - who's players get better faster to cycle their players more.

When was the last time you saw a truly game-breaking dwarf?
When was the last time you saw a truly game-breaking elf?

Ooh, having bad experiences against agile teams, eh?
I see a mighty fight between agile and strong team fans...

Even if your question should suggest answer like "from a long" and "5 minutes ago", i will dodge those because for me the answer is "it's all in your mind. Are the coaches to be (or not to be ) game-breaking, depending on how good they are to exploit their resources".

Its MUCH easier for an elf team to replace a decent player than for a dwarf team to do likewise. Costwise there is practically no difference, but elves gain skills much more easily and faster than any "bashy" player can.

I do not agree.
Since I don't know what a decent player is for you, I'll take some example from most expensive players (not considering Big Guys):

Code: Select all

Witch Elf (110000) 7,3,4,7 Dodge, Frenzy, Jump Up
Mummy (100000) 3,5,1,9 Mighty Blow, Regenerate
Troll Slayer (90000) 5,3,2,8 Block, Dauntless, Frenzy, Thick Skull
Wardancer (120000) 8,3,4,7 Block, Dodge, Leap
Chaos Warrior (100000) 5,4,3,9

and so on...
Replacing one of these players seems to me easier for a team like Dwarves and Chaos than Dark Elves, not only because of the price, but mostly because of the difference of AV that makes them prone to early injuries (considering that they are newbie playing probably against experienced players)

In short, these rules will really hurt any bashy team who lose a player, as he will be practically impossible to replace.

Matter of opinion...

On number two you are simply plain WRONG. Removing aging helps the high SPP players survive longer, as it removes one thing that can stop them. Negative winnings hurt EVERYONE equally, but as a bashy team has a much harder time replacing key players, it is in fact Bashing tems who are hurt more by this if that player ages.

Looking at what I wrote before, I cannot agree with you of course...

Yes, removing aging helps experienced players to keep bones and guts together.
And yes, negative winnings can occur to both the kind of team.
But are the agile teams who are addicted to apo (and having expensive key players), so are these to run out of money fast before bashy teams.
And are the high AV teams who suffer of a lower injury rate.
That means they will need less of replacements (expecially without aging), resulting in two things:
1) they have more chance to collect money;
2) even if incoming goes negative, they can afford that better and for a longer period, having a lesser chance to have to recruit someone.

High armoured teams can *risk*, expecially in the early matches, to play without apo and can decide not to hire him depending on the opponent. It's rarely the same for agile teams...

cheers,
marco

[Dinaturz]

I'm easily swayed by data ... if I see AG teams suffering I'll agree with all that's been said.

Please note that I am not saying that are the AG teams to suffer more from this package.
In my opinion are the low AV to suffer most.

marco

[neoliminal]

Any change to the rules will affect the different teams to various degrees.

The changes to fouling would obviously have hurt some teams more than others. Was that really a reason not to change the fouling rules?

This arguement of which race suffers the most could be made about any rule, and is basically a divisive distraction from the work that needs to be done.

[Mnemon]

Personally, I don't agree that a TR cap is needed at all (see reasons below - maybe somebody can convince me anyway ), as we will get one no matter what, a soft TR cap is definitely the way to go ... though I fear negative winnings will hit me real hard as I tend to roll a lot of 1s.

Why do I think a TR cap is not necessary:

1. Über TRs really only come into existence in FUMBBL like leagues - that is, free picks of opponents, large playerbase and "open ended" play. If you think playing a game at a TR level that high is boring - don't do it, as it is an open enviroment you can freely retire any of your players and not play againt Über TR teams - those that want to can no matter what.

If it turns out to be a problem in your small local "real life" league - I count on people having enough human sense to find a solution within that league.

2. Fluff reasons. I have a Team on FUMBBL that is based on the fact that those players get reborn if they die, but never retire no matter what injuries they have ... of course that means high TR, but I don't play that team to necessarly win, but because I like to have a bit fun - negative winnings would in the long run make it impossible to "resurrect" the players. Now that is a single team, and my approach to bloodbowl is probably different than that of most (I just roll to damn bad) but personally I'd find a setup where I end up having huge debts entirely frustrating.

3. Despite the general claims even a high TR team does NOT have to consist of Überplayers with lots of skills. Best example I know of: My Dark Elves at TR 262 - not a single player has more than three skills, and a team with alot tackle has good chances (given, they play in divx, where [at the time I could play active] few people where loading up on tackle) to give them a hard time. Only player I would consider retiring is the ag3 blitzer with kick,once I get one of the linemans to take that instead.

The team still can develop quite a bit further in TR without being overpowered. Seeing that I had bad luck at my FF rolls (started with 9, was down to 5 at one point) negative winnings again would hurt much.

-Mnemon

[Thadrin]

Even if your question should suggest answer like "from a long" and "5 minutes ago", i will dodge those because for me the answer is "it's all in your mind. Are the coaches to be (or not to be ) game-breaking, depending on how good they are to exploit their resources".

I have seen Elves dodge into multiple tackle zones, pick up the ball, dodge out and throw a completed long bomb. I have seen Elves take the ball from a player on the goal line and score in one turn.
That's not something bashy teams can do easily. Hence "Game Breaking" players.

I do not agree.
Since I don't know what a decent player is for you, I'll take some example from most expensive players (not considering Big Guys):

Code: Select all

Witch Elf (110000) 7,3,4,7 Dodge, Frenzy, Jump Up
Mummy (100000) 3,5,1,9 Mighty Blow, Regenerate
Troll Slayer (90000) 5,3,2,8 Block, Dauntless, Frenzy, Thick Skull
Wardancer (120000) 8,3,4,7 Block, Dodge, Leap
Chaos Warrior (100000) 5,4,3,9

and so on...
Replacing one of these players seems to me easier for a team like Dwarves and Chaos than Dark Elves, not only because of the price, but mostly because of the difference of AV that makes them prone to early injuries (considering that they are newbie playing probably against experienced players)

And lets not mention that the Slayer is by FAR the most easily killed of that group. The only one who doesn't have a ST or AG of 4 or more, and he wears a huge target on his head.

In short, these rules will really hurt any bashy team who lose a player, as he will be practically impossible to replace.

Matter of opinion...

No it isn't. It took me 20+ games to get a SINGLE LONGBEARD up to three skills. He died two turns later, and again three turns later after I'd used my apoth. He had Block AND Dodge.

I didn't have another Longbeard anywhere close to that. Replacing a 31 SPP lineelf is considerably easier seeing as EVERY elf can score pass and catch well.

On number two you are simply plain WRONG. Removing aging helps the high SPP players survive longer, as it removes one thing that can stop them. Negative winnings hurt EVERYONE equally, but as a bashy team has a much harder time replacing key players, it is in fact Bashing tems who are hurt more by this if that player ages.

Looking at what I wrote before, I cannot agree with you of course...

Yes, removing aging helps experienced players to keep bones and guts together.
And yes, negative winnings can occur to both the kind of team.
But are the agile teams who are addicted to apo (and having expensive key players), so are these to run out of money fast before bashy teams.
And are the high AV teams who suffer of a lower injury rate.
That means they will need less of replacements (expecially without aging), resulting in two things:
1) they have more chance to collect money;
2) even if incoming goes negative, they can afford that better and for a longer period, having a lesser chance to have to recruit someone.

High armoured teams can *risk*, expecially in the early matches, to play without apo and can decide not to hire him depending on the opponent. It's rarely the same for agile teams...

So you're saying that because a Tough team will get fewer players hurt they need the apo less and therefore have more money to use later...

I think we're talking a very small amount of money here - especially if the agility teams are played aggresively. EVERY team allowed one needs an apothecary. I start my dwarf teams with one, because if you want to win you have to minimise the chances of being outnumbered. Bashy teams get players hurt and killed too...I don't know where people get this idea that having AV9 makes players immortal, or that Agility teams can't often give every bit as good as they get (extra manoueverability gives more assists)
Lets remember something very important - by the time negative winnings kick in these will be teams of fifteen or sixteen players. An elf team can easily risk losing a player if he's fouled the hell out of a dwarf to get sent off.

I maintain: Removing aging has a more positive effect on agility teams than it does on bashing teams, while negative winnings are a wash. Therefore you are wrong.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

It took me 20+ games to get a SINGLE LONGBEARD up to three skills. He died two turns later, and again three turns later after I'd used my apoth. He had Block AND Dodge.

Which is why I get so pissed when I hear AG coaches tell me that Longbeards are the strength of the Dwarf team. They always say something lame like "Once you get them all <skill X> and or <skill Y> they are really powerful." What?! Once I get them ALL a certain combo of skills? Dippy elf coaches with AG 4 linemen think it's just so easy to get a 2 skilled lineman. What a joke.

I didn't have another Longbeard anywhere close to that. Replacing a 31 SPP lineelf is considerably easier seeing as EVERY elf can score pass and catch well.

[sean newboy]

I concur, my experiance is Lizardmen, with the Saurus. Getting a 2 skill elf lineman just takes using them, doing the same with an ag1 saurus takes usage AND luck. Getting 4 skills takes about a season of concentration with an elf lineman but would take many seasons for a saurus.

Can anyone get some data from fumbbl to either back me up or dispute me?

[Chris]

I maintain: Removing aging has a more positive effect on agility teams than it does on bashing teams, while negative winnings are a wash. Therefore you are wrong.

I agree, and not just because I haye elves (see other thread).

[Dangerous Dave]

Neo wrote

This arguement of which race suffers the most could be made about any rule, and is basically a divisive distraction from the work that needs to be done.

This is why it is critical that changes are fully tested as a whole. I agree it is very difficult to say without doubt what the effect of one rule change is on each race. However, balance is obviously key to the game. My biggest beef with the last rules review is that testing of some of the changes does not appear to have been done in sufficient depth - a point made by others and to date, not refuted with fact.


Dave

[Dinaturz]

And lets not mention that the Slayer is by FAR the most easily killed of that group. The only one who doesn't have a ST or AG of 4 or more, and he wears a huge target on his head.

really??? Even more than a Witch elf having ST3 and AV7?
Oh, poor boy, all alone in this cruel world having only ST3 AV8, block and TS from the beginning... can you figure out how hard is the life for such unfortunate guys?

wow, probably we play in very different groups...

Matter of opinion...

No it isn't. It took me 20+ games to get a SINGLE LONGBEARD up to three skills. He died two turns later, and again three turns later after I'd used my apoth. He had Block AND Dodge.

Are you speaking of bad luck or about odds?

So you're saying that because a Tough team will get fewer players hurt they need the apo less and therefore have more money to use later...

Exactly

I maintain: Removing aging has a more positive effect on agility teams than it does on bashing teams, while negative winnings are a wash. Therefore you are wrong.

Aah... the joy of open discussions and the pleasure of diplomatic finesse... What a music for my hears!

You can maintain as long as you want, but the impression you give is you are speaking about your experience as dwarf coach (with bad feelings vs elves too... ), not like someone looking for a solution.

It seems that because you like the slow but reliable bearded heroes, other playing styles should adequate to this...

As I said, it's all in your mind. You are a good coach if you can use at best each bit of potentiality (and, if you are a believer, pray Nuffle to bless your dice!).

Now, it wa asked to post some data about Fumbbl Race Statistics (sorted by weighted ranking): enjoy.

Please note that they are related to huge groups (like 6-8k teams), having no cap and time limit for a season (including Open Division = The Neverending League), so probably they are not so useful to have a picture of how the teams behave/develop in a short or in any case time limited league.
Besides, they are very useful for a long long terms view.

marco

[Thadrin]

really??? Even more than a Witch elf having ST3 and AV7?
Oh, poor boy, all alone in this cruel world having only ST3 AV8, block and TS from the beginning... can you figure out how hard is the life for such unfortunate guys?

who also has a nice movement and AG4 to run away with.
My Ag2 and AV8 really helps there.

Are you speaking of bad luck or about odds?

Odds. It is an undisputable fact that it is easier to develop a bunch of two skill elves than it is to get even one two skill Longbeard.

You can maintain as long as you want, but the impression you give is you are speaking about your experience as dwarf coach (with bad feelings vs elves too... ), not like someone looking for a solution.

It seems that because you like the slow but reliable bearded heroes, other playing styles should adequate to this...

As I said, it's all in your mind. You are a good coach if you can use at best each bit of potentiality (and, if you are a believer, pray Nuffle to bless your dice!).

Grow the hell up. My preference for dwarfs doesn't all of a sudden make you right. You're still wrong. Aging affects agility teams more than bashing teams and therefore removing it is a bonus to those teams. Is this very simple piece of logic to much for you, or did I not put enough finesse on it?

By the way - at the Spiky open I beat two Wood Elf teams by a combined score of 5-1. Sure, I've got reasons to be bitter.

Now, it wa asked to post some data about Fumbbl Race Statistics (sorted by weighted ranking): enjoy.

Please note that they are related to huge groups (like 6-8k teams), having no cap and time limit for a season (including Open Division = The Neverending League), so probably they are not so useful to have a picture of how the teams behave/develop in a short or in any case time limited league.
Besides, they are very useful for a long long terms view.

marco

I don't have time NOW to look at the data (i'm at work, and we're having a group lunch now)...I'll check it later and debate this part later.