Tweaking teams after LRB6

[Kamalh]

If you want stats for the cyanide's Bloodbowl game you can use Bloodbowl manager, an appli made by a friend:
http://download.bbligue.com/BloodBowlMa ... ublish.htm
(was made for french communauty but got an english version)

Some stats screenshots:

[DoubleSkulls]

Are the stats from a Cyanide private league or something? If so I'd really like to get my hands on them. Are you able to send me a CSV with the results in?

[spubbbba]

Those are great Kamalh.

I suppose you'd have to limit cyanide games to respected leagues as their open play is a tad concession happy. Either that or only count games that go the ful 16 turns.

[Kamalh]

http://forum.bbligue.com/showthread.php?t=3297

[plasmoid]

Hi Spubbbba - sorry for the late reply:

With such small sample sizes then it's very possible to have some results outside the norm. Maybe more good players use dwarfs in those leagues, or they are in leagues that take a lot of dodge, or all the established coaches have dwarfs and are beating on rookie teams as new players join the league.

Everything is possible. But with no reason to suspect that something freaky happened, I might as well trust the data. And given that the data is from 30-ish leagues, even more coaches and a 2 year spread, I think it is not particularly prone to local champions working magic.

Whilst the rankings in the cyanide game and FUMBBL are flawed they can provide a bit of an indication of skill. The dwarf stats drop about 5% in the NAF tourneys where things are equal in terms of TV and you are more likely to face a coach of your own standard.

I thoroughly disagree. LRB4 stats (FUMBBL), restricted yet uncontrolled stats (Cyanide) or heavily house ruled (tournament) stats aren't an indication of anything. IMO.

As for orcs, I consider them an explainable glitch, because they're in the box, so see a lot of newbie play, lowering their stats. The original discussion therefore ignored them. But in my own list (2nd post) I've actually suggested a nerf.

Remember about 1/4 of the teams in BB are supposed to be joke teams so will lose most of the time vs the top ones.

True - (1/4?) - but those teams are not popular, so they're not played often. Ogres, gobbos, halflings and vamps have played roughly 8% of the total games. So of those between eachother. So they don't have a big impact on the stats.

The top teams should pretty much always be in the top half of the power ranges. I like that some teams start strong and get weaker whilst other do the opposite.

I like waxing and waning power too. That doesn't change that to me dwarfs and undead are simply overly good early on. IMO, that is reason enough to get them nerfed, and as long as they don't become joke teams later on, then I'm fine with it.

With the greater amount of claw and weaker apoth (who will be saved for the 8 positionals) then they will skill up very slowly. it's also harder to skill up such players compared to the likes of elves.

Of course they're harder to skill up. On the other hand they're rarely "reset". And if you run their stats, I think you'll find that they've not somehow become elfy-squishy in LRB6.

As for your change, maybe 4 runners isn't all bad. I'm just really vary of giving anything to a team that deserves a nerf. If it ended up being a buff, it would be a disaster. And 4 runners would be a direct move away from one of the team's main weaknesses.
Others have in fact suggested the switch with tackle on the blitzers and a price cut on the linemen. I like it, but I'm not sure it's a nerf at all. Tackle is, against most teams, fine to have on 2 players. So changing that for a significant TV cut could easily be a boost.

If dwarfs started weaker they'd still be a strong team, and wouldn't be ruined by later in development getting taken "down to the depths of the rubbish human team". Inducements even help them. They can stay trimmed to a level where they're good and take inducements instead of getting bloated/weak.

Ah well. I sense we won't agree.
Cheers
Martin