Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[dsavillian]

and if that is your version of fun that is all good, but why does it have to be the only version of fun for halfings? You can handicap your own halfing team if you want to fight destiny but does that mean every halfing team should have to face the same fate?

Because halflings and goblins deserve to be tackled and crushed by dwarves.

[dode74]

Once again just because that was the plan does not mean it is right. Also you can have tiers that don't have such a huge difference in outcome. Two even coaches with one playing dwarves and other playing halfing. Do the halfings win 1 out of 10? Is a draw like a win for them? Having the outcome almost pre determined is not fun imo

Then choose not to play dwarf vs fling, or whatever other "predetermined" option you can come up with. People know the rules and know the tier system, so choosing to play handicapped then complaining about it is pretty silly. Yes, it restricts you to 16 T1 teams instead of 24 teams, but that is still a lot more than the 9 teams we had back in 2nd edition. 16 is actually quite a lot of choice - it's a lot more then you get to choose in elections, for example

The "I like team X's playstyle but can't choose them because I'll lose games" argument is pretty flawed, imo. The playstyle and the ability to win games are linked, and it is perfectly possible to play passing orcs or chaos, bashy elves, annoying stunties with lizards etc while still staying T1 and winning games. This is a game, and you can choose to play whichever style suits you. Getting upset because flings lose lots is like getting upset because your Mini can't compete with a Ferrari - it's the design.

[dodolulu]

it doesnt sound as if he complains about losing with t3-teams. he complains about generally not being able to play these teams when one wants to stay competitive. its the fact that 24 > 16 and more (even or horizontal) variety is attractive for some coaches including me. i wouldnt even like to play flings or ogres, but i would like to play against competitive flings or ogres as its a totally other experience to play against them instead of playing against the standard bash or elven team. as it is now, you rarely see these teams in perpetual leagues.

[dode74]

Then, as has been suggested, house rule it with plasmoid's NTBB rules. The fact is that tiers were a design aim, whether you agree with it or not, just as speed is the design aim of the Ferrari but not the Mini. You can change the innards of the Mini to make it faster if you like, just as you can alter the game rules - CRP is clear that house rules are encouraged so that you can enjoy the game the way you want:

The League Commissioner"s role is to find the best match of rules for the coaches in his league.

[harroguk]

So on. One hand people are saying

Rules are rules are rules are rules

And on the other they are saying

POMB is over powered and should be changed. Why is it okay to look at changing one rule and not others?

[dode74]

There's a difference between individual rules and design philosophy. Personally I think that critiquing any and all of it is a good thing - there are bits I would change (POMB is not one of them, btw), but leaping from "I don't like X" to rulebook changes is not a good thing. Rigorous playtesting is required to ensure balance and fun are maintained/improved on before actual rulebook changes are made. House ruling things the way you want them to be and playing it that way can provide a good source of playtest data.

[sann0638]

Different kind of game. Street Fighter is a tiered game - as described by the designer.

That street fighter article is very good.

[Darkson]

As you already said you play inn a league with some of the England Team, this would lead me to believe that you are one of the better players, not one of the worse players that effectively can't pick these teams.

It's no fun to get thrashed 4-0 every game.

Your counter of "So what" is the worst counter debate I have ever heard.

I'm definetly NOT one of the better players, but I agree with Garion.

When the boring powergamers "win" and make all races "equal", that's the day I find another game to play.

I suck with Elfs (of any sort) - are you saying that they should be buffed over Skaven (which I'm better with), just so I can play them? Rubbish - it's up to me to either get better with them, or find a team(s) I can play.

[cbbakke]

Why do you have to make it such an absolute? Nobody is saying make the teams exactly the same. There is a far difference in narrowing the gap between teams and making all exactly equal.

When a different opinion is offered on the rule, it is so old for people to go to "well go play chess, go play madden, lets make the teams all the same, the game was designed that way etc etc etc". Your response is nothing to do with what is being said. Having an opinion that there is a game balance issue or design flaw does not mean that you want chess. It means you have an opinion on how to improve the game.


Also play testing is an ongoing process. Edition 3 and 4 had a ton of play testing. There was still issues with the game which lead to another edition. This edition had a lot of play testing but it is not going to be able to take into account everything. How many games were involved in play testing compared to how many games is played a week with the PC version. When games go main stream the player base is so much larger and those players are going to come up with new wrinkles that were not foreseen. Look at a game like WOW, it had hundred of thousands of people in beta and with in days of going live numerous "bugs"/ "super combos" were discovered that needs to be fixed immediately because it completely unbalanced the game. That is not a slam on anybody in any way, it is just a reality.

[dode74]

How many games were involved in play testing compared to how many games is played a week with the PC version.

The PC versions are not the CRP. Don't judge the CRP based on the Cyanide game, or even on FUMBBL. Perhaps if there was a version on the PC which was an accurate representation of the rules you would have a point, but there isn't.

[cbbakke]

They are the accurate rules for how some aspects of the game work. Can you apply how the PC version works when talking about bank rules? no. It uses petty cash.

Can you use it for talking about CPOMB? yes, it functions the same.


Once again, it is not an absolute, black or white, all or nothing.

[Darkson]

Can you use it for talking about CPOMB? yes, it functions the same.

No, because it exists in a system where it's form TV-managing leads to more high-AV teams which leads to more CPOMB being taken, and leads to smaller roster being taken for "efficiency", meaning the removal of 1 or 2 players has more effect.

Why do you have to make it such an absolute? Nobody is saying make the teams exactly the same. There is a far difference in narrowing the gap between teams and making all exactly equal.

No difference, because it still goes against what the design of the game was. Galak's posted the win% that the BBRC (including JJ) wanted the various tiers to be, and all teams are where they were meant to be (even teams that people feel need minor nerfs and buffs).

If you don't like the design of the game, then by all means house-rule it to how you (the proverbial you, not you specifically) feel it should be, like Plasmoid has. I'm all for house-rules, I play by plenty of strange ones myself, but don't think that just because you (as above) think that it's wrong, it needs changing. The game is where it's meant to be.


And iirc, the only online playtest data was from the PBeM MBBL league (because FUMBBL was still LRB4 then, and Cyanide BB didn't exist), and many TT leagues across the world. Plasmoid has the stats on his site somewhere, but I think the number of TT games out-weighed the number of online games, and was given more weighting in the discussions of any rule changes.

[cbbakke]

here you go again," Galak said galak said". We are talking about the future of the game not the past.

[burgun824]

Having an opinion that there is a game balance issue or design flaw does not mean that you want chess. It means you have an opinion on how to improve the game.

True. But in my experience everyone has an opinion on how to make the game better. The problem is that 99.9% of those opinions are terrible (my own included).

[legowarrior]

Having an opinion that there is a game balance issue or design flaw does not mean that you want chess. It means you have an opinion on how to improve the game.

True. But in my experience everyone has an opinion on how to make the game better. The problem is that 99.9% of those opinions are terrible (my own included).

Please tell me my opinions make in the 0.1%! Please! I need to know this, or all will be lost, and Bloodbowl as we know it will be doomed!