A better suggestion to improve racial variety (perpetual)

[Hitonagashi]

I also still think that AV9 players will be getting too good a deal - even better than the numbers - because piling on an AV9 player, when that removes all other modifiers, is going to be a rare event. Go prone and try to roll a 'straight 6' isn't exactly tempting.whupass on everyone.

It's not to roll a 6. The aim is to get a KO, and a cas is a nice side effect. Go prone to roll a 4+ is a much better bargain.

[nufflehatesme]

most fix's for piling on suggested improve av9 relative to av7.

how about on the reroll for av mb can not be used on a 7 or less?

buffs av7 against mb/po , and by extension av8 and 9 vs cpomb.

leaves mb/po the same against av8+ which i feel is pretty good. this also means piling on to the av u are less likely to break av7, with odds of 5/12 instead of 7/12 (which may reduce mindless piling on)

[plasmoid]

Hi Hitonagashi,
you misunderstand me.

The stats posted assume that you'll use your skills to break armor. But I think the stats are lying. Say you knocked down an AV9 player and didn't break AV. Would you pile on - knowingt that you'd need a 10+ (straight 6), since piling on excludes both MB and claw?

So, to re-iterate: I think the rule does not give enough of a break to AV7 players. And I think the stats presented for AV9 players are harsher on paper than they'll be in actual play.

Cheers
Martin

[Chris]

In actual play I have seen a lot of teams get the ball safe then pile in on mass. Especially when you have something like a beastman jumpin a chaos warrior where you have a movement advantage. We are talking here about long term perpetual leagues. Here it is performance over time and developing god teams for the playoffs. Its not like a short league where every game counts. Pile on every time is not nesecerily a good tactic, but over time is very important - unless of course you already have a numbers advantage in which case I would pile on vs av 10!

Your point though would weaken teams without claw using piling on, so you are effectively saying MB + PO is more than 1 skill worse than CL+MB+PO?

[nufflehatesme]

Hi Hitonagashi,
you misunderstand me.

The stats posted assume that you'll use your skills to break armor. But I think the stats are lying. Say you knocked down an AV9 player and didn't break AV. Would you pile on - knowingt that you'd need a 10+ (straight 6), since piling on excludes both MB and claw?

So, to re-iterate: I think the rule does not give enough of a break to AV7 players. And I think the stats presented for AV9 players are harsher on paper than they'll be in actual play.

Cheers
Martin

most fix's for piling on suggested improve av9 relative to av7.

how about on the reroll for av mb can not be used on a 7 or less?

buffs av7 against mb/po , and by extension av8 and 9 vs cpomb.

leaves mb/po the same against av8+ which i feel is pretty good. this also means piling on to the av u are less likely to break av7, with odds of 5/12 instead of 7/12 (which may reduce mindless piling on)

no change to piling on for av8+, nerfed against av7 and below. no one likes this idea? nerfs cpomb without nerfing pomb (except against av7 and below, which is probably warranted)

[Smeborg]

Hi guys. Sorry, I've been too sick to post for a few days.

My misunderstanding of Doubleskull's original proposal on another thread is genuine (i.e. I am making a different proposal to his).

Under my proposal, Claw is always good against AV9 and AV10 (you will break armour on an 8+). Mighty Blow is (slightly) better than Claw vs. AV8. Although Piling On will likely not be used to the max against high armour (when AV is not broken on the first roll), this is still very possible at certain times and at the set piece (Line of Scrimmage).

I think there is something like a consensus emerging that it is not the damage skills in themselves that are a problem, but their combination. Like Plasmoid, I don't think Doubleskull's proposal does quite enough to tone down the damage against AV7 teams (PoMB). I also feel it does not tone down the damage in general quite enough. I also feel that CRP knockdown damage is a bit out of kilter with other traditional methods of causing injury (crowd surfing and fouling). Note that under my proposal, there would likely be interesting compensatory behaviour (e.g. killer players taking Tackle instead of a second or third damage skill), thus nerfing may well not be as great as suggested by my numbers. This is a matter for play testing of course.

What problem am I trying to solve? In my experience as a league commissioner, racial variety is very important for coach recruitment and retention, not to mention general enjoyment. It is not uncommon, for example, for a new coach to arrive with his one team which he is determined to play in an open league. If the environment is one where such a team gets slaughtered without any form of redress, the coach may well leave. Likewise, a player whose team starts to get slaughtered after (say) 25 games or so in an open league may also drop out. I would like to see a perpetual environment where every team gets a chance to at least survive if decently coached, since I believe this is better for the hobby. That doesn't mean every team has to thrive - killer teams ought to be quite popular in any long running or perpetual league, I'm very happy with that (actually I like playing against them, personally).

It's all about getting the right balance between SPP loss and SPP gain in a perpetual setting (inflicting CAS being a major component of both). Added to that is the balance between high AV and low AV teams.

Hope that helps.

[Chris]

Like Plasmoid, I don't think Doubleskull's proposal does quite enough to tone down the damage against AV7 teams (PoMB).

I actually don't think they have the biggest problem. AV7's are ether cheap or elves as a rule and so losing them is not the same as getting your black orc done over and waiting an eternity to get it back to block so it is no longer a liability!

I also feel it does not tone down the damage in general quite enough.

I have no problems with damage, I just dislike it being the preserve of a few teams and the disproportionate effect it has in the long term on different teams. So it is a range of measures I'd like to see.

As you go into, it is knock down damage, fouling, injury, team rosters and progression. For the latter a suggestion I saw recently somewhere was for there to be 2 MVPs. The random on and a 'best newcomer' award given to a player with no skills. For injury I like adding the level of the player to the injury dice, so as you become older and more skilled the more likely your career will catch up with you.

[Smeborg]

Chris - I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. These are subtle balances in the game. CRP knockdown damage, however, is anything but subtle at higher TV. It appears to work against racial balance in a long running league. I like plenty of blood in the game, but I think racial balance can be improved.

[DoubleSkulls]

Fundamentally though the problem is that the behaviour dode has done so well to analyse seems to indicate people's preference is for teams that don't take a lot of damage, but can dish it out. That equation immediately leads to an imbalance in the current game mechanics. Teams which have lower Av just can't compete easily when that drives popularity. Hence the lack of elves of any form...

It would be good to understand if the same drivers effect normal leagues too, or whether it is particular to perpetual formats.

[swilhelm73]

Out of the two leagues I am in, one has

30 Teams
1 Stunty
5 Agile
11 Hybrid
13 Bash

the other has;

4 Agile (3 DE!)
2 Hybrid
6 Bash

I've played 3 seasons in the first league, and 1 full one in the second (long seasons in that one) and the champs have been:

2 Agile
2 Hybrid

So...it does bear out that people prefer Bash...but agile wins...

My take on team type:

Agile: All Elves, Skaven, Vamps
Hybrid: Human, Zon, Norse, Un, Nec
Bash: Chaos, Nurgle, Orc, Khemri, Dw, CDw

[dode74]

For OCC from season 7 to season 11 (i.e. the time from which the 20 teams were available) the figures are as follows:

Code: Select all

          Teams Played
Orcs        40  1328
Chaos       19 913
Dark Elves  11 719
Wood Elves  12 661
Undead      16 518
Nurgle       6 466
Necromantic 11 447
High Elves  11 436
Lizardmen    9 419
Humans       9 371
Dwarfs      10 359
Skaven      11 350
Elves       10 321
Norse       11 319
Khemri       6 255
Amazons      7 254
Goblins      5 175
Vampires     3 142
Ogres        6 120
Halfling     4  61

I believe I've posted the current structure elsewhere, but here it is again:
Amazon 2
Chaos - 24
DarkElf - 14
Dwarf - 12
Elf - 8
Goblin - 7
Halfling - 2
HighElf - 9
Human - 15
Khemri - 6
Lizardman - 11
Necromantic - 11
Nurgle - 10
Ogre - 3
Orc - 31
Skaven - 12
Undead - 11
Vampire - 5
WoodElf - 13
Norse - 4

From that limited dataset it seems the same bias is in place.

[Smeborg]

So, dode, are you saying that you think it's just a case of gentlemen prefer bash?

[Edit: dode, I've finally caught up with your comments on the other thread, you don't need to reply to the above.]

[DoubleSkulls]

For OCC from season 7 to season 11 (i.e. the time from which the 20 teams were available) the figures are as follows:

From that limited dataset it seems the same bias is in place.

Are the Cas & win% available for OCC?

[plasmoid]

Doubleskulls said:

Fundamentally though the problem is that the behaviour dode has done so well to analyse seems to indicate people's preference is for teams that don't take a lot of damage, but can dish it out. That equation immediately leads to an imbalance in the current game mechanics.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is the case in short or medium leagues.
But in long and perpetual leagues... probably.

I don't think there is anything surprising about coaches wanting to play a team that will stay strong for the duration of the league. I think most BB coaches are builders after all - we like to make skill rolls and watch the team grow. Gowing down in a ball of flame for the latter half of whatever league-length you're playing is hardly an easy sell.

We may see finesse teams winning more. But if they win for 35 games, then have to start over with a new team, then it's not as satisfying. Just like wood elfs may have an awesome win-percentage for their first 5 games - but most coaches can't be bothered to start a wood elf team over and over and over just to stay at 80%.

Growing big and staying big is an objective in itself.
And I think this gets amplified when breaking players is (too) easy.

So, to return to the quote: Yep, the psychology leads to an imbalance. But an imbalance also implifies the psychology - creating sort of a downward spiral.

Cheers
Martin

[juck101]

The funny thing is if (IF) claw is causing issues than I would expect woodies and amazon to be more popular at higher team ratings, and they would win more because they av7 anyway.

Now that is not the case from my perspective or the stats.

So PO,MB must be the issue or namely both with claw stacked. However we are not saying PO and Mb are a problem as namley the orc and dwarf sides should profit if this was the best 2 skills combo. Chaos nurlge are singled out yet the main part of the equation is available to both the more popular chaos and lower winnign ratio dwarf/orc.

I do see the point and would trial it but I can only see that PO needs to change and both claw and mb are fine.
Sorry I wish we had the vault forum logic online to see how we found the improved PO, and easy access claw for the first time as I recall BOTH were fine. I might of argues myself into thinking PO and claw in issolation are fine, yet the 3 combo is in fact causing the issue depsite not having a reason why amazon have not reset the meta-game