Thinking ahead: NTBB 2013

[plasmoid]

More regarding the Bank:
@Juriel:

I think, if the desire is to set limits on just how high TV teams are allowed to go to, there's a lot better ways.

I should note that Bank was playtested prior to CRP in multiple leagues, and wasn't reported as a problem.
I wonder what a 'better way' would be though.
Original vault rules had a hard-cap to TV, and the whining was overwhelming.
Setting SE lower (as MattDakka suggests) is also very unpopular - the minimal tightening I did with NTBB had several theorybowlers pulling their hair.

and may make one bad match spiral into further ones

But do we want perfect protection? Isn't damage and player attrition part of Blood Bowl?
We have journeymen, mercs and stars to fill the roster whenever we take a trashing.
And you can have 100K stashed. Plus the winnings you get after the game. Plus anything you want to carry above that, if you pay the TV. So if you accept a 5TV fine, you're padded with around 200K for that terrible game that can hit us all.
...and killstack has been nerfed, so you're not as likely to take that übertrashing.

@TalonBay:

I think the bank rules are the one standout awful part in a bunch of changes that overall I think work quite well. Our league has adopted these changes but is specifically raising the bank value to a point where it has minimal effect.

I wish you had tried it before changing it. You'll never know if it would have worked.
That said, if we see real complaints in the NTBBL (or from other leagues trying it) that 100K is too harsh, then Galak, Ian and I are all perfectly willing to raise it to 150K.

But I do wonder how often it has actually been a potential problem for anyone in the league. The elf coach (sparkydave?) in your league that said he didn't like it had a treasury of 20K (I think). Nowhere near the cap in any way. I think the impact on normal teams may appear a lot bigger than it actually is. I know the rule has changed my spending habits a bit, but certainly in early and medium development it is hardly a factor at all.

Cheers
Martin

Given that people don't even agree where they'd like blood bowl to go I doubt you'd get a set of rules changes to appeal to everyone. These have a specific aim (narrowing the gap between the teams) and include some tweaks to the rules alongside that, if you're one of the coaches who likes the range of of team strengths as it is then this would never appeal regardless of the actual changes.

[plasmoid]

Finally (for now) Shteve0:

I've been having this conversation with Martin privately, but for what it's worth: I feel very comfortable with NTBB where it makes changes that are subtle, understated and only tweak obviously (uh oh) overpowered (uh oh again!) areas of the rules; and not at all comfortable where untested personal flavours are introduced.

For what it's worth, I'm trying to be conservative.
The CRP+8 rules are to my mind quite focused and necessary (if you accept the basic premise of NTBB, that there is currently a bash slant that should be adressed). I've had suggestions to weak a lot more stuff, but I'm not. As you know, I tried to change the abusable(?) SG/Babe combo earlier, and I'm very happy to have landed it in time for the 2013 edition.
The other half is ofcourse the roster changes. I am trying to show restraint here as well. As you know, I believe the idea of narrowing tier 1 isn't that controversial. Buffing tier 2-3 is probably more controversial - and is easy enough to ignore by any league comfortable with those teams seeing very little action.

I started with the polls/discussion in 2009, and then tested that. If something didn't work quite right, we had to tweak. I admit there is a level of executive decision (somebody has to make the call), but I think I've been quite open to feedback when looking for changes. Naturally, anything new can only be 'untested' (as you say), but I'm working off feedback on things that were tested, to figure out where to go from there.

Case in point, the gobbos (which you bring up). We tried 3 trolls. It just didn't work. So I went with 2 lonerless trolls, which I figure is about the same power level. Now, as 3 trolls were found too weak, I wanted to add a little more, and so I did. It will be tested for a full year, and if it turns out too good, we'll dial it down. Mind you - I can't imagine it being woodelf/undead good, so it won't break any leagues, even if I overshoot a bit. So I feel comfortable with the change.

That said, this is obviously a house rule set, so Martin is perfectly entitled to introduce rules as he sees fit. The question (for me) then becomes one of clarity; is this intended as (a) a mass appeal environment, (b) a kind of test ground for a popularly more 'stable' CRP (in which case far too many buffs and tweaks are being incorporated for my liking); or (c) is this an absolute house rule set devised for playtesting fun new ideas as dictated by its author (in which case it's not an environment I feel I need or want to be involved in)?

It can't really be (b), as a new edition of the CRP may very well never happen, and if it does the BBRC won't be let anywhere near it.
But I do think the CRP+ core (a playtested/developed version of Galaks original list) is worth testing for those interested, and I think NTBB helps spread the knowledge of this list. I do also think that feedback/playtest of that list can be separated from the effects of the roster tweaks. It's reasonably small scale testing, so we'd never just crunch numbers anyway. It's feedback/analysis/discussion all the way.
I hope to make it (a) eventually - though mass is probably overstating it. As TalonBay wisely said, the rules have a clear intention and if anyone disagrees with that intention, then they are bound to not like the rules. It has a touch of (c) I suppose, but not really. I mean, they are house rules. But I'm working hard to not just pile on "fun new ideas" - I want to keep the list of changes lean. I'm testing and responding. Listening to feedback (which isn't the same as incorporating everything), and I'm looking forward to the New Years where there will be no more changes. We're getting there

But, and here's the big issue, we all have wishlists like this. So I guess I'm looking for any house ruleset I'd adopt to pursue only the clear common ground without all but the most absolutely necessary of tweaks. For me, it would be very difficult for changes here to be too conservative - the more risk, the lesser the ruleset appeals.

I think there is no actual common ground.
I've stated the purpose of the NTBB rules - and I see it as a core and to "expansion" packs (narrowing tier 1, and narrowing the gap).
I think parts or all of the rules will appeal to leagues that agree with the purpose of the NTBB rules.

I know I can't please everyone.
And I know it seems offensive when I don't adopt any and all suggestions made by everyone.
But I've started down a path, and I'm trying to progress methodically.

Cheers
Martin

PS - your list:
I feel that lonerless trolls is quite enough of a boost to goblins; AFAIK you don't want to improve them as much as I do.
that ogres have been boosted too much; Same as above, though based on results so far the new ogres are nowhere near tier 1. But I've got feedback from several coaches that these are a vastly more enjoyable team. It's one of the team tweaks I'm the most confident in.
loner mummies ; This was discussed in the distant NTBB-past. I think you'll have a very hard sell!
that a 10k increase to zon linewomen (with all positions gaining A access free); As you know, I think this might work, but I'm testing what I've already started first. Also, admittedly, this is the one team where I think I've been a bit more "creative" than I've otherwize allowed myself to be. Check Garions comments for an example of why.
wardancer without block (and no other change); A hard sell methinks. I did almost that, but sweetened the deal a tad.
I'd like to see a little more boldness in addressing the Orcs and Humans. Boldness? Sorry. Your own comments explain why. The more bold, the further away from any common ground. (IMO).
And I like the change to dwarfs

Cheers
Martin

[Shteve0]

Hi, thanks for the response (and happy new year, by the way!).

I don't know would I necessarily agree that narrowing the tiers is undesirable, but it depends how you define it (since that is a very broad definition in and of itself). My personal feeling is that narrowing between the tiers is not as desirable as narrowing within the tiers, and specifically pulling the top level back to a t1-t1.5 standard as we currently see it.

For starters, what's the target power level for any given team? If we base it on win% as described by Galak on 3DB, and eliminate tier overlaps to avoid confusion, the information available for LRB6 at naf tournaments (http://naf.talkfantasyfootball.org/lrb6.html) gives the following Tier structure.
T0 (>55%): Undead (55.8 ), Wood Elf (55.8 )
T1 (50-54.9%): Lizardmen (53.7), Chaos Dwarf (53.2), Amazon (53.1), Dwarf (52.8 ), Dark Elf (52.7), Skaven (52.4), Norse (52.2), Elves (51.0), Necro (50.4)
T1.5 (45-49.9%): Orc (47.9), Pact (47.1), Vampires (46.7), Khemri (46.6), High Elf (46.3), Underworld (46.2), Humans (45.0)
T2 (40-44.9%): Nurgle (44.6), Slann (44.5), Chaos (44.2)
T3 (<35%): Halflings (34.6), Ogres (31.6), Goblins (31.6)

You're right in that I don't think The T3 teams should be close to what we currently think of as T2, though I've no objection to them getting small boosts. My immediate preference though would be to level the playing field to gradually bring each team closer to their target win% within their tier (I'd suggest +/-1.5% of midpoint, with T0 eliminated) - ie the immediate candidates for attention are Undead and Wood Elf, but any further short term boost to Vampires, for example, is entirely unnecessary.

It's just one data source, of course, but for judging short term power levels I can think of few better.

Cheers

S

PS my point with the Orcs and Humans in my last post was thrown in there to make a later point about everyone having wishlists - it's been taken a little out of context in your reply without the ("But, here's the thing...") qualifier that follows. If you've seen some of my other posts elsewhere you might know that I'd actually advocate several teams being dumped entirely and the game's overall power level dragged backwards a few steps - but I don't think that level of overhaul is (a) anywhere near the remit you've set yourself in NTBB or (b) ever going to happen.

[Darkson]

My personal feeling is that narrowing between the tiers is not as desirable as narrowing within the tiers, and specifically pulling the top level back to a t1-t1.5 standard as we currently see it.

That I agree with (though I'd be wary of basing tiers of NAF data).

[dode74]

Shteve0 - It's worth mentioning that the margin of error of the win% for both of the "T0" teams means that the range for their win%s starts at below 55%, potentially putting them in T1, and certainly creating an overlap with other races. For undead it's 54.66 at the low end and for WE it's 54.59 (both to 95CI), while Lizards could be as high as 55.12. It's also worth mentioning that these are for tournaments only (afaik, or at least strongly biased towards tournaments), and differing sample sizes for different TVs will produce different win percentages. The relevant data set will depend on what environment it is that Plasmoid is trying to balance.

[Juriel]

It also allows teams to stockpile cash for things like Majors, where a team at high TV can effectively nullify a lower TV team's inducements

Good point. I realized I have actually done this myself, when I figured the extra inducements wouldn't change things nearly as much as getting a Wizard of my own would.

Even my Necro gathered a million in cash in pretty short order, let alone some AV9 team...

[garion]

Only true in match maker and box environments I have never seen a crp only team accumulate big sums of money in league then stick in the break even zone with a cash stockpile before.

as I said, I have observed one or two undead and necro teams with quite a lit of money in perpetual leagues but they don't win anything anyway once they and their opponents are fairly consistently around a 2000 tv zone, so the cash isn't really helping them anyway.

I've seen it with both Chaos and Orcs, where both teams were able to maintain 3000TV for about 20 matches, and were able to use cash on inducements for important games.

Hmmm, sounds questionable. Guess I will have to take your word for it though.Did they actually gain any real benefit from that money, like winning the league? Because the fact they have kept their TV at 3000TV for that length of time just means they aren't losing players. If they are losing skilled players and have the money to replace them with their TV would still drop significantly. a TV 3000Tv team suggests said team had a number of legends and most players skilled. So I don't think the bank would make any difference there. They are staying at a high TV because their players aren't being killed or injured enough to warrent firing not because bank rules arent there.

I've seen it in leagues, which is why I added back into our league, and we only play about 20 games (or less).

Again did it help them win the league, or give a team any real advantage?

[Darkson]

@Garion - yes, especially in the play-offs.

(Technically, we allow teams to play in multiple seasons, so I might not had dumped all the cash if that had been the case, but practically, everyone just starts new teams. That said, winning the final alone gave me 100k, so even after spending, I would have been straight back to the Bank limit.)

[garion]

well I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. I'd say any advantage gained is negligible, and in the 4 big leagues I play on fumbbl I have yet to see any real advantage to having money, or any team that has consistently won games or stayed at a high TV as a result.

and I certainly havent seen any proof that makes cash dumping seem sensible. It just plain stupid for a sports team to throw their money away. If its such a concern in your leagues you could just make SE harsher or start lower which is far easier and makes sense more imo.

[MattDakka]

It just plain stupid for a sports team to throw their money away. If its such a concern in your leagues you could just make SE harsher or start lower which is far easier and makes sense more imo.

Harsher SE seem to me a good solution, in theory. Or maybe capping the max amount of money a team can hoard, like 1,000,000 GP or less, if it's too high.

[garion]

It just plain stupid for a sports team to throw their money away. If its such a concern in your leagues you could just make SE harsher or start lower which is far easier and makes sense more imo.

Harsher SE seem to me a good solution, in theory. Or maybe capping the max amount of money a team can hoard, like 1,000,000 GP or less, if it's too high.

Or since these are house rules just re-write TV because it is a stupid system

[Darkson]

Higher SE affects teams that can't hoard cash.
Having a cap on treasury is just as "stupid" IMO as Garion finds cash dumping.

Though its only been since LRB5 that cash dumping seems strange - used to dump.cash all the time under TR (LRB4 and earlier).

[spubbbba]

My personal feeling is that narrowing between the tiers is not as desirable as narrowing within the tiers, and specifically pulling the top level back to a t1-t1.5 standard as we currently see it.

That I agree with (though I'd be wary of basing tiers of NAF data).

Yeah, NAF games are of even less use for balancing teams in a league than online MM data.

Not only are there lots of different rulesets, you also often have the ability to assign skills. This makes a huge difference to teams like lizardmen. Teams being reset after every game really changes how the teams play and effects balance too.

I have seen more teams being able to hoard cash in leagues than they could in lrb4, of course part of this is that there is no penalty for it. I think the bank rules benefit agile teams the most since they have a higher turnover of players anyway. I could see it hurting hybrid teams since they tend to need subs and often have expensive and slow to skill up players.

[garion]

Higher SE affects teams that can't hoard cash.
Having a cap on treasury is just as "stupid" IMO as Garion finds cash dumping.

Though its only been since LRB5 that cash dumping seems strange - used to dump.cash all the time under TR (LRB4 and earlier).

why? it made no sense to do it in lrb4 and prior as you just went on splurges and spent it on wizards and star players rather than litterally throwing it away for nothing.

But in CRP it doesnt make sense to do this as you are just giving away the same to your opponent in inducements anyway. I'd rather neither team had a wizard in crp than both for example.

[dode74]

Hmmm, sounds questionable. Guess I will have to take your word for it though.Did they actually gain any real benefit from that money, like winning the league? Because the fact they have kept their TV at 3000TV for that length of time just means they aren't losing players. If they are losing skilled players and have the money to replace them with their TV would still drop significantly. a TV 3000Tv team suggests said team had a number of legends and most players skilled. So I don't think the bank would make any difference there. They are staying at a high TV because their players aren't being killed or injured enough to warrent firing not because bank rules arent there.

MAD are the only Chaos team to have won my league in 16 seasons. They played for the first 8 seasons of OCC before moving on to the BBATTL circuit, I believe (a home for retired teams which we have). This is their TV profile (green line) from the end of their 3rd season (which is when we started using BBManager, the tool which is allowing me to display this graph) to the end of their 8th, which is the point at which their treasury reached zero:

You can see their casualty list here. The "match number" in the casualty list doesn't relate to the match number for the team: it's the number of matches the player had played. To summarize, 45 SI (i.e. not BH) or worse in ~70 games, with 7 being deaths and another 14 being stat losses or niggles. I guess they were fairly lucky with the number of non-permanent injuries (getting far more MNGs than perms), and he did keep a lot of crippled players (Gluttony was at AV6 before taking 2 MNG and eventually dying), but still, they maintained over 2500TV for 40 or so games, and over 3000TV for at least 10. I don't recall the Orc team name but will try to dig it up.

You can dump cash by hiring and firing cheerleaders/asst coaches, I believe.