Tweaking teams after LRB6

[Smurf]

I have been playing a league for 2 years at my club. What I have noticed is that the coaches tend to be in 3 tiers and not the teams.

Coach tier 1
Coaches generally knows what their team can do and play it it's strengths. I'd say we have 2 of those!

Coach tier 2
Coaches know their team but set up incorrectly and some coaches fail to take the initiative in most situations. About 8 of those

Coach tier 3
Cannot get to grip with their team at all and win by luck rather than skill. There are 2 of those.

When developing your team it is about using skill combos that will put your opponent off their stride. Do coaches pass the ball regulary? Or do they just choose block for most players. IMO wrestle is the better one.

There is a skill to ball movement, there is no skill to rolling dice. Every die roll can lead to a TO, when do you need to reroll. Watching coaches GFI when there is no point is baffling.

[plasmoid]

Hi Galak and Ian,
perhaps if I was the BBRC I would
However, I don't want to open myself up to endless unproductive attacks on the data pool, and I'm not totally satisfied with "anywhere within the tier is fine". For this!

But as stated, this is suggestions for leagues already agreeing that said team is a problem - so I merely want to suggest a decent (not tiny, not huge) tweak, that remains fluffy and not too outlandish.

I could have done this for all 24 teams - but I wanted to focus on team that I consider to be likely candidates for such feelings. I've based my selection partly on "my" datasample, partly on anecdote (- yep Joemanji ). For example orcs and khemri are tier one in the stats, but they've attracted lots of comments here. (I.e. that orcs should have been nerfed, and that khemri are too weak - even though tier 1).

I hope you can appriciate the difference.

[plasmoid]

Hi Joemanji,

Prove my point. Everyone hates certain teams. WEs and Amazons piss me off royally. But I don't want to see them nerfed out of contention, because something else will just rise to the top of my hate list.

That's not quite what I meant by "f*ck 'em".
And I certainly don't want to nerf anything into the realm of the unplayable.
What I meant was that I just can't stand any more whining from coaches used to playing super powerful teams.
I'm a commish, not a fan of any one race.
And IMO, no team in any way deserves a win-rate over 55% - nor am I particularly worried whether a nerf will put them more than just a little below those 55%.
IMO, any species with 50%+ should be smiling and dancing.

I get that you think that Wrestle would destroy the dwarf team.
I utterly disagree with that analysis - but I know it's just opinion.
Most teams don't have blocking safety on everyone. They just have to suck up the turnovers. Dwarfs have other things going for them - and while Wrestle is not a great match, at least they'd be protected from the turnovers. I will eventually play a few games with Wrestle dwarfs, because the concept is quite alluring for me, but not on any scale that could prove anything either way.
But I don't hate them. Played them in a 50 game season once.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Smurf said:

I have been playing a league for 2 years at my club. What I have noticed is that the coaches tend to be in 3 tiers and not the teams.

My experience is somewhat longer and considerably different.
Yes, there are ofcourse different tiers of coaches.
But there are also tiers of team power.
In a league with all tier 1 coaches, gobbos are not equal to undead.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
Pgoo - I've been pondering the claim that these tweaks would somehow lead towards a BB that is less varied and hence less interesting. I appriciate that you didn't roll out the popular punchline that "in the end, all BB teams would turn into 0-16 6338" - or that "BB would become chess".

I see it very differently.
I think it would lead to more variation, more fun, more cool strategy and more surprises.
I've played enough tournaments to wish for a more even representation of the 24 species.
I currently play in a league of 8 highly skilled BB-veterans. Such coaches don't really make the mistakes that allow tier 3 teams to win. Yes, luck is a factor too, but generally, tier 3 and tier 2 teams go down in flames. We love close games, and that severely limits our team selection. I'd love to have more viable options. If any one of us wanted a challenge, we could just choose a "balanced" team and forego one of the positions.

Cheers
Martin

[DoubleSkulls]

IMO, any species with 50%+ should be smiling and dancing.

Tier 1 teams ought to be over .500 records because they ought to win more games than they lose against other tiers.

The fundamental issue is that for me at least you are not being clear on what your goals and objectives are. Why improve snotlings? Why do you want to make Ogres better? Are they not winning enough? What is "winning enough" for Ogres?

Until those questions are answered I find it very difficult to discuss concrete solutions. Your the man with the numbers! Use them

[atropabelladonna]

Hey Plasmoid

I prefer these changes over your first set. I understand where you are going and I love the idea of tweaking teams for personal leagues. Hence this being the house rule section. You are just trying to make the difference between teams narrower.

I am a it confused about the human catcher. You say +1AV no price change and then say he costs 80K. I am also not sure if humans need that much of a buff (Ogre + Blitzer price reduction and + AV on catchers seems a bit much). Humans are not that bad a team.

For Orcs I prefer to have them loose the troll and all goblins as I agree that in a league setting they are one of the good teams (using your assumption all coaches are good).

[atropabelladonna]

Hi all,


I currently play in a league of 8 highly skilled BB-veterans. Such coaches don't really make the mistakes that allow tier 3 teams to win. Yes, luck is a factor too, but generally, tier 3 and tier 2 teams go down in flames. We love close games, and that severely limits our team selection. I'd love to have more viable options. If any one of us wanted a challenge, we could just choose a "balanced" team and forego one of the positions.

Cheers
Martin

What do your league mates say about these changes? Do you come up with them or is it a group process. As long as the majority agree with your overall goals, it should be fine.

[plasmoid]

Hi Atropa,
I come up with the stuff, but if anybody complains enough I'll rethink it.
I'm lucky in that my league mates all want the gap between teams to be narrower. It'll be a while before we test this.

We only play once per month, and we're currently in the middle of 4 divisions where all the BB teams have to be represented. More than anything, that's what got me started thinking about this: We're a pretty equal bunch, so whoever is playing the low tiered team is sitting through 6 months of abuse. Sometimes fun, but not all that exciting.

As for the human catcher, it was a cut&paste typo.
It's supposed to be AV+ for +10K, but -10K off the blitzers, and ogres for 130K.
So, on a full 4 catcher 4 blitzer roster you'd have AV8 catchers and the ogre for -1TV.
Clearer?

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Ian,

Tier 1 teams ought to be over .500 records because they ought to win more games than they lose against other tiers.

Well I go by the BBRC standard on this general statement. Tier1 is 45% to 55% - and if you're i the top half of that you shouldn't be complaining that your team is too weak. (Shave your beard in silence, yes, complain, no).

And I won't commit to specific numbers, because with no chance of doing large scale testing, it would all be just mumbo jumbo anyway.

Why improve snotlings? Why do you want to make Ogres better? Are they not winning enough? What is "winning enough" for Ogres?

As Atropabelladonna said, I'm just trying to narrow the gap.

Or as I said: If a league feels that ogres are winning too much, the suggested buff will make them perform a little better. A decent buff - not a tiny one (10K off the rerolls?) or a huge one (more ogres?).
...oh, and I actually think I explained what I think the exact problem with ogres is. It's too easy to just bash off the snots, leaving the ogres outnumbered.

But if you want a commitment to total mumbo jumbo numbers, I'd have to call this a 3 tier system: Tier 1 (50-55) - where I want the nerfed top teams to go as well as humans/khemri, Tier 2 (45-50) - for the quite decent teams, Tier 3 (40-45) - for the "joke" teams, though I wouldn't mind if they were all at the high end of this.

Cheers
Martin

[atropabelladonna]

Hi Atropa,
I come up with the stuff, but if anybody complains enough I'll rethink it.
I'm lucky in that my league mates all want the gap between teams to be narrower. It'll be a while before we test this.

As for the human catcher, it was a cut&paste typo.
It's supposed to be AV+ for +10K, but -10K off the blitzers, and ogres for 130K.
So, on a full 4 catcher 4 blitzer roster you'd have AV8 catchers and the ogre for -1TV.
Clearer?

Cheers
Martin

Hmmm, why bother? Just make the catchers 8 AV for no price change. Done. Reduce the Ogre if you wish. Your change would make me want blitzers even more and catchers less at team startup. Basically encourage the running game as I would not buy a catcher at the start and maybe not for a long while. Passing is rare enough as it is. Encourage more catchers on the pitch by keeping them cheap.

I would go with

320K 4 Blitzers
130K 1 Ogre
140K 2 Throwers
200K 4 Linemen
200K 4 rerolls or 3 rerolls and a apoth (your choice)
10K for whatevery you want.

There really is no place for a catcher. I do not think a +AV catcher is = to a blitzer.

[plasmoid]

Hi Atropa,
basically, I did it because I consider the player worth the 80K. Getting the best AV bump (7->8) for free seemed a bit much. I know I would use catchers on the starting roster. (At the very least I'd take the 10K and the 2nd thrower on your list, and buy a catcher instead).

Now, I didn't want to cripple the team with a price bump, and I've been influenced by Joemanji saying repeatedly that the blitzer is overpriced, so I figured I'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone, but making both 80K (coincidentally making the pricing similar to BoBs and Blitzers on their sibling team).

That was the thinking.

And I do think there is room for catchers right off the bat. I know a lot of coaches that don't start with the ogre, but would rather have the extra players. An alternative starting line-up might be:
320K 4 Blitzers
070K 1 Thrower
160K 2 Catchers
250K 5 Linemen
200K 3 rerolls and a apoth - (or 4 rerolls, your choice)

Might even forego the apoth for the 1st game, now that nobody is AV7, and transform a lineman into a 3rd catcher. I think they bring a lot to the team! I skill up mine for block/wrestle and dauntless. Blitzy blitzy

[lerchey]

Hi All,

So, I played Dwarves in my last league season. 14 games. 10W, 2D, 2L. I started 2 weeks back (2 game sessions, often 2 matches per session) so I was 300-300k down the first week, and 200 or so down the second. I got 1D,1L each of the first 2 weeks, and never looked back.

I would have NO problem with dwarf linemen losing block as a starting skill. Tackle and Thick Skull with AV 9 should be enough for ANY starting lineman. Look, since dwarves are slow (granted, comparatively, and the blockers with MA 4 really have to hustle move!) Tackle is the offset. It negates dodge. It's GOOD. They have access to Block and access to Guard. Taking Block away from them will not nerf them - it'll only (dare I say it?) slow them down a bit on development. (there, I said it)

My starting line up had 2 TS, 2 Blitzers, 1 runner, 4 RRs and the rest in blockers. After the second game I bought the second runner. I now had 2 MA 6 players and 4 MA 5 players. For caging the ball and grinding, I never really had much of a problem. Further, 4 of the players had AG 3, making them respectable (as good as humans!) ball handlers. One Orc coach complained quite loudly that I not only trounced him, but that I *out maneuvered* and *out ball handled* his team.

I will admit that I never managed to get a match in with any of the real movers - Wood Elves or Lizards, but I took down Skaven with NO problems, took out undead, mopped the floor with necros and humans, trounced orcs - don't even bring up what I did to the goblins - and totally crushed Norse with great regularity.

I'm not saying that the team has to, or even should be hammered. But really, would loss of block on the linemen *really* make them *that* much worse?

[plasmoid]

Hi Lerchey,
I don't remember a lot of posts from coaches feeling dirty from playing an über race.
Usually coaches simply surmise that their winning streak must be due to their own supirior skill.
Coincidentally, the only other such example I do remember, is Boufs rather passionate public apology for playing dwarfs (too).
Coincidence?

[voyagers_uk]

sample size = 2
conclusion = Dwarves overpowered
EUREKA!