Narrow Tier BB - 2012

[Juriel]

1. I'm considering switching to straight LRB4 PiOn (PiOn rerolls armor only)

I'd prefer treating it as conditional-MB (have to go prone before rolling the dice to get a +1), because that is one less roll to make.

2. I'm considering a small buff to the 'redundant' amazon catcher.

MA7 would do the trick and open up new options for Amazons. Of course, it would be less powerful to replace them with the Human Catcher.

[legowarrior]

In leagues with only average players, few if any of the players can afford to play as the tier 3 teams without giving up too much ground.

I'm (assuming?) that part of your post was in jest, but I disagree with this. In our last (proper) league I took goblins, and I'm no longer the best player in the league.
I had great fun.

The only problem comes if coaches start obsessing on winning rather than having fun.

If players aren't obsessed with winning, why do we need a tier system?

[legowarrior]

1. I'm considering switching to straight LRB4 PiOn (PiOn rerolls armor only)

I'd prefer treating it as conditional-MB (have to go prone before rolling the dice to get a +1), because that is one less roll to make.

So Pile On is straight up a weaker version of Mighty Blow? I realize that not all skills are equal, and that is fine, but besides Pile On and Mighty Blow, not all skills are equally comparable to each other. So what would the difference between Pile On and Mighty Blow be, if only that Pile On is it's weaker scooby dumb to Mighty Blows scooby doo?

[plasmoid]

Hi Tourach,
the 2 are remarkably similar on the stat-front, but the 'armor-reroll' version will make you go prone more.

These are the stats for removing (KO+) a player. I've factored in a 55% to get the knockdown, but you can factor those back out if you want to

PO=MB: AV9 13.5%. AV8 19.5%. AV7 25.3%
AV RR: AV9 13.73%. AV8 19.31%. AV7 24.59%.

So, less than a percentage difference on the raw removal stats. I don't have the stats for straight cas.

Cheers
Martin

[the.tok]

1. I'm considering switching to straight LRB4 PiOn (PiOn rerolls armor only)

I'd prefer treating it as conditional-MB (have to go prone before rolling the dice to get a +1), because that is one less roll to make.

So Pile On is straight up a weaker version of Mighty Blow? I realize that not all skills are equal, and that is fine, but besides Pile On and Mighty Blow, not all skills are equally comparable to each other. So what would the difference between Pile On and Mighty Blow be, if only that Pile On is it's weaker scooby dumb to Mighty Blows scooby doo?

*cough*accurate/strong arm*cough*
And in many many situations MB/claw, but just "kind of"

[Chris]

If players aren't obsessed with winning, why do we need a tier system?

There is a very strong background for having awful races in blood bowl.

But otherwise self limiting is no fun (not taking re-rolls, not taking positonals etc). But taking a goblin team say and trying to wring every ounce of performance from it is.

[garion]

Hi all,
Garion said:

Who was apropabella using? I thought I was flings next time?

Atropa is using Khemri (and Dark Elfs). You'd have to decide between flings and khemri, unfortunately.

Oh I dont want to play khemr, god no, I could bare it, i find them far too boring. I will play flings and are we playing another team as well or just one each next time?

@Koadah, the reason the team is designed like that is that firstly it fits their fluff. Dexterity is the word that is used to describe them in the rules, only they dont currently play that way. (Dexterity defination - skill and ease in using the hands), so yeah I made them more like an ag3 elf team only they all start with Dodge instead (except one potional). Passing and catching is a 2+ like elves because they are meant to be good with their hands. Their Blitzers get an av boost which helps long term and so does a big guy. Also there are no teams like this in the game which would make them unique. Give it a test run, on Botocs, its a damn site more fun than the tedium of the current roster and they play to the design of their fluff, which is important imo.

As for Plasmoids Zons -

I think they are ok. Personally I would take a catcher, I understand why people are saying they wouldn't bother because the linewomen have ag access now, but when you construct an Amazon team the playes are so cheap as are their re-rolls, so there is nothing else to spend the money on anyway. Having two catch players also makes it a little easier to play against Dwarves and Chaos Dwarves as you often have to fall back on passing to get a result against them.

As for your zons- getting rid of Dodge on the blitzers.

This also goes agains thier fluff in the short term as their team info says that they are a nightmare to take down. But if they get Ag access long run then that balances that up more, because then they will have blodge SS which makes them tougher to take out. I think your suggestion works, but it really depends on what you are trying to do. For me I hate zons because they are just soo boring not because they are too good. 6337 across the board and Dodge on everyone so most teams cant knock them over. It is just a lame cookie cutter team at the moment, that requires little skill to use. I also dont like the way they are great vs everyone except two teams at a low TV, that has always felt wrong. For me at least they need to be changed just to make them more interesting to play with and against above anything else.

[legowarrior]

If players aren't obsessed with winning, why do we need a tier system?

There is a very strong background for having awful races in blood bowl.

But otherwise self limiting is no fun (not taking re-rolls, not taking positonals etc). But taking a goblin team say and trying to wring every ounce of performance from it is.

I think you can have tons of fun with self limiting! Have you tried playing a team of Chaos with the only rule being that you can't take block? Trying getting the most out of a team like that, it would be a big handicap for you.

From a personal stand point, I like halflings, and I like the idea of Treeman throwing my players around. I also enjoy winning from time to time. I have to choose between a legitimate team/side/faction/race and winning. I don't think any other competitive game actually makes you choose between the two on purpose as part of the design.

[Juriel]

Yes, current Amazon roster problem is that it's unimaginative and lame. They need a Norse treatment, there's no KISSing that away.

[garion]

Yes, current Amazon roster problem is that it's unimaginative and lame. They need a Norse treatment, there's no KISSing that away.

Exactly!

If players aren't obsessed with winning, why do we need a tier system?

There is a very strong background for having awful races in blood bowl.

But otherwise self limiting is no fun (not taking re-rolls, not taking positonals etc). But taking a goblin team say and trying to wring every ounce of performance from it is.

I think you can have tons of fun with self limiting! Have you tried playing a team of Chaos with the only rule being that you can't take block? Trying getting the most out of a team like that, it would be a big handicap for you.

But most people, myself included want to play the proper version of the rules. Why self limit when the game gives you options for this anyway in the form of tiers. As has been said there are already more than enough top tier teams as it is and the next tier are perfectly competative as well. Do we need any more top tier teams? Are there really not enough races for you to play? Personally I think there is a very large pool to choose from.

I think Plasmoid has already covered the biggest problem with the bottom tier races with two rule changes.

The change to PO and the Tackle doesnt work against dodge for right stuff players (i personally dont like this one, but thats niether here nor there). So do the stunty teams need any more buffs than that if the tiers are just being narrowed? Or is the aim to get them mid or top tier 2?

[DoubleSkulls]

Hi Doubleskulls,
I've much enjoyed the thread where you crunched numbers with Dode. Very interesting.
But I think you're getting a bit carried away by the analysis [And I think it's a telling sign that you believe you understand Koadahs motivations better than he does himself]

I've hosted enough TT tournaments and talked to enough coaches that I'm confident that a weak team will get played less than a tier 1 team, (unless said tier 1 team is percieved to be staggeringly boring). I'm also quite confident that as teams get closer to tier 1, they'll attract more coaches - the kind of coaches who think 'I can surprise everyone because I have the key to playing this team' or 'it would be awesome to win this tournament with something that isn't an überteam'. But they'll rarely go with a team so bad that they going 2/0/7 will be a moral victory.

I believe I know enough coaches to know that teams that are tier 1.5 or 'top of tier 2' will attract more coaches than bottom of tier 3 will. Not as many as good tier 1 teams - I know. But I'm not looking for perfect distribution. I'm looking for more variety.

Cheers
Martin

I talk to people in real life too... and what people say and what people do are different things... your "evidence" is what people would say they would do, but the numbers we have from the NAF clearly show that for teams in the bottom half by win%, their respective win% has very little bearing on popularity. So I just don't believe you'll get the outcome you think you will. So long as you are committed to keeping the tiers then I think making their win% closer to increase the frequency they are played will not work. If you want to narrow the gap between tiers for the sake of it then fine, but that isn't something I'm interested in (nor am I interested in eliminating tiers altogether, although that probably would have the effect of making the worse teams played more).

[nick_nameless]

...the numbers we have from the NAF clearly show that for teams in the bottom half by win%, their respective win% has very little bearing on popularity.

I think an argument can be made for just the opposite. Using Orcs as an example, they are one of the more popular teams and have a lower winning %. IN the hands of a good coach, Orcs are a great team. In the hands of a beginning coach they are as bad as just about any other team. As Orcs come with the main set they get into the hands of beginners much more easily than any other team.

The more a team is played the more it is exposed to a range of coaches and subject to "normalization" across the bands of coaching skill.

[Chris]

...the numbers we have from the NAF clearly show that for teams in the bottom half by win%, their respective win% has very little bearing on popularity.

I think an argument can be made for just the opposite.

I may be misunderstanding you, but surely if the arguement was for just the opposite you are saying for the teams in the bottom half of the winning scores it has every bearing on their popularity? How do you see that?

[koadah]

I talk to people in real life too... and what people say and what people do are different things... your "evidence" is what people would say they would do, but the numbers we have from the NAF clearly show that for teams in the bottom half by win%, their respective win% has very little bearing on popularity. So I just don't believe you'll get the outcome you think you will. So long as you are committed to keeping the tiers then I think making their win% closer to increase the frequency they are played will not work. If you want to narrow the gap between tiers for the sake of it then fine, but that isn't something I'm interested in (nor am I interested in eliminating tiers altogether, although that probably would have the effect of making the worse teams played more).

Do your figures tell you what will happen if you increase a team's win% to past 45%?

[koadah]

...the numbers we have from the NAF clearly show that for teams in the bottom half by win%, their respective win% has very little bearing on popularity.

I think an argument can be made for just the opposite.

I may be misunderstanding you, but surely if the arguement was for just the opposite you are saying for the teams in the bottom half of the winning scores it has every bearing on their popularity? How do you see that?

Opposite as in doesn't show that at all?