Narrow Tier BB - 2012

[dode74]

I think there will be an adjustment of skill selection. The skills you suggest are actually far better against a WD. Tackle alone increases the odds of getting him down immensely, while grab negates the positional advantage.

[DoubleSkulls]

I really should have done the maths on +1/+1 Piling On earlier . It comes out almost exactly the same as my suggestion for Injury only and no MB stacking. I'm not sure I particularly like the mechanic (my original objection), but I could live it with.

So that leaves my primary concern what I think will be a clear superiority of Claw teams over non-Claw teams. Sure, both are less effective, but CLMB is unchanged and better against AV8 and AV9 than POMB. In particular POMB used to be better against AV8 and now is about the same, whilst getting even further behind on AV9.

In an old match up CLMB Chaos against POMB Dwarves, the Dwarves could target the Beastmen and get them off faster than the Chaos player could get rid of Dwarves - and it was only the CLPOMB combo where Dwarves/Orcs were outclassed. Now Chaos will be able to beat them earlier because they won't be able to remove Beastmen any faster than Chaos can get rid of Av9 players - making Chaos comparatively better earlier in their development.

Given that Chaos seem to be extremely popular is many formats of the game I'd consider it a concern that if nothing is done about toning them down then I suspect the movement will be from Dwarves/Orcs and other non-Claw teams even further towards Claw teams.

[dode74]

I'm not particularly fussed about the claw/non-claw issue. Like I said before, I think the aim is make Khemri, Amazons, HE and PE more popular at the expense of the bash and claw teams. DE, Skaven, Lizards, WE, UD, Humans and Norse (and even Necros) are roughly where we want them. Chaos, Orc, CDs, Dwarves and Nurgle are the issue. The main things all of these have in common is no A access and LOTS of S access - ranging from all of the team (Chaos) to a minimum of 9 (Orc, CD, Dwarf, Nurgle), as well as almost universal G access (except big guys). So a reduction in the number of Orc and Dwarf teams I could live with; I just don't think people will necessarily move to claw teams instead due to the reduced attrition on low AV teams making them more attractive.

[nick_nameless]

That's a MASSIVE nerf to low AV teams, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

I don't see your logic here. Please explain.

[dode74]

That's a MASSIVE nerf to low AV teams, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

I don't see your logic here. Please explain.

This is a quote where I compared "no skills stack" (called "your proposal") to "MB/PO don't stack" (called "my proposal"):

Here's my issue:
Under your proposed rules (no two skills used together):
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my BOB (for example). You use claw for 5/12 (so 8+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 2/12 (10+ required).
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my Wardancer (for example). You use MB for 7/12 (so 7+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 5/12 (8+ required).
Under the CURRENT rules:
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my BOB (for example). You use claw and MB for 7/12 (so 7+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 7/12 (7+ required).
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my Wardancer (for example). You use MB for 7/12 (so 7+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 7/12 (7+ required).
Under MY proposal (PO cannot use MB, but claw can combine with either one):
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my BOB (for example). You use claw and MB for 7/12 (so 7+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 5/12 (8+ required).
Your CPOMB player hits and pows my Wardancer (for example). You use MB for 7/12 (so 7+ is required) but DON'T break AV. Do you pile on? Your odds if you do are now 5/12 (8+ required).

Under your proposal the odds for the BOB are far better than the odds for the WD - many people wouldn't bother using PO with only a 2/12 chance to break AV, but might take a punt on 5/12 if the situation is right. Under the current rules the odds for both are the same, but high. Under my proposal the odds for the WD are the same as the odds for the BOB, but are also the same as the odds for the WD under your proposal. I think it's REALLY important that the relative survivability of the different AVs stays the same for the full combo - that is, after all, the point of claw: to be an AV-neutral attrition mechanic.

For casualty rolls our two mechanics would be identical, as only MB and PO come into play.

[Chris]

Humans *snip* are roughly where we want them.

? You elf lover you.

Chaos, Orc, CDs, Dwarves and Nurgle *snip* I just don't think people will necessarily move to claw teams instead due to the reduced attrition on low AV teams making them more attractive.

Well, I think you might be in a small camp there. The other option to consider of course is more blood. Make everyones attrition increase, that boosts the attractiveness of high SPP collecting teams and makes all round killers hard to maintain. As it is a skill stack something like aging - which affects you the more you develop (though not aging that sucked) would also address the perception in tv matched environments that having a few developed stars in the way to go.

[dode74]

No Elf lover - I was talking in terms of popularity. Humans are almost on the line in FUMBBL B:


The SPP differential isn't that large, actually:

This is the theory which many people, me included, have said is true. With >45,000 games worth of FOL data to look at, I thought I'd see if it was the case.

I looked at the mean number of completed passes, casualties caused and TDs scored for each race per game, then multiplied them by the appropriate amount (1, 2 and 3 for those yet to read the rules!) to give each race a mean SPP gain per game (not including the MVP). I then looked at the mean number of casualties taken by each race. This is the graph of the results:

As you can see, the agi teams (with the exception of Undead) tend to gain more SPP per game. What is less obvious is the correlation between taking cas and gaining SPP, but if you look for a correlation in just the tier 1 teams (because Vamps, Ogres, Gobs and Flings will skew things as they are set to a different standard) we can find that r=0.704. With 16 teams being assessed we can say that anything over r=0.426 is a significant correlation.

So yes, more fragile teams do gain SPP faster and they do take more losses. Whether or not the extra gains make up for the extra losses is a different question, and one which can't be answered without looking at SPP on a team over time - data I don't have.
-----------------------------
In terms of SPP received per cas taken, the bash teams came out top (dwarves, orcs, undead, chaos, nurgle then khemri), but there is a very weak correlation with that stat and win% (r=0.10), so it would seem that the ability to gain and maintain SPP has no correlation with winning games.

Interesting that the "SPP received per cas taken" lists the same teams as popularity.

[koadah]

nick_nameless is right! Who cares about a few stinking elves. They'll still win their games even with only 2 players left on the park.

[legowarrior]

[quote="dode74"]No Elf lover - I was talking in terms of popularity. Humans are almost on the line in FUMBBL B:


Please use a bar graph or histogram when presenting data comparing popularity. Line graphs should only be used when showing trends over time.

[nick_nameless]

I think the point is more that the Orcs and Dwarves, etc pay for their armor at the expense of other things. There are skills that affect the use movement and strength and even agility, but those skills are typically less effective the higher the opponent's representative skill is. Claw is the only skill that is better.

Think: Dauntless versus strength, Diving Tackle versus dodge, Disturbing presence versus passing or catching, etc.

And nothing I said would change that difference, it would just make it less effective overall. With what I proposed a team is still better off using claw against an AV9 team than using Mighty Blow. Claw versus av 8 is the same as mighty blow, but it allows the player to save the mighty blow for the injury roll.

I don't care if the odds are better to break an av7 player. They should be. Elves have better odds to do other things. That's part of what balances the game out. The point should not be to normalize the effect of the skill so much as to bring it back towards balance.

Clearly what I proposed it a nerf for ClawPOMB. It's not a nerf to av7.

[dode74]

Please use a bar graph or histogram when presenting data comparing popularity. Line graphs should only be used when showing trends over time.

Don't be so anal. It shows the data perfectly well and is far easier to present when the two series are swapping over which is the higher.

nick, the point is that things get worse for AV 7 relative to AV9. This is the argument:
- There is a correlation between the popularity of a team and the team's ability to cause and not take casualties.
- That correlation shows that Orcs, Chaos, CDs, Dwarves and Nurgle are the most popular teams. This is important: Orcs and Dwarves are a part of the problem.
- It also shows that AV7 teams are the least popular.
- Aim: It is desirable to boost the popularity of AV7 and reduce the popularity of the big bash teams in order to get a more even spread of teams, thereby increasing variation in the league.
- Hypothesis: given the above correlation it may be possible to do that by reducing the ability of all the big bash teams to give out casualties and also increasing their ability to take casualties relative to AV7.

Clearly what I proposed it a nerf for ClawPOMB.

I'm not arguing with that. It clearly is.

It's not a nerf to av7.

It does the opposite of what we would like to do according to the argument above. It is a relative nerf to AV7 compared to AVs 8 and 9. It is a straight boost to all of their survivabilities, but it boosts that of higher AVs more than it does of lower AVs, which is the opposite of the aim.

[koadah]

Clearly what I proposed it a nerf for ClawPOMB. It's not a nerf to av7.

actually I misread what you proposed.

My approach is to not allow taking claw and PO on the same player.

Everyone else can continue to be nasty. claw boys can still MB+claw or POMB those nasty orcs & dwarves but not both.

AV7s are just gonna have to dodge away and run fast. There must have been a good reason taking an AV7 team.

[dode74]

Again, a boost to Orcs and Dwarves survivability, and I simply do not understand why you want two of the most popular teams boosted and made more popular

[nick_nameless]

That correlation shows that Orcs, Chaos, CDs, Dwarves and Nurgle are the most popular teams. This is important: Orcs and Dwarves are a part of the problem.

I must have misunderstood the intent of what Plasmoid is trying to do here. I didn't think it was about adjusting popularity at all.

These stats from FUMBBL collected by Jimmy Fantastic tell us that at AV 7 is doing just fine across most TV ranges.

So, which is the point of the thread...to increase variety of teams or to create some tweaks that bring some over powered and under powered stuff back in line?

[dode74]

viewtopic.php?p=631992#p631992

my main goal of making team selection and viable tactics a bit more diverse. I suppose this would eventually be measured by how many other teams than big bash were doing well in long term league play.