MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 15:51 |
 
|
I well know that Norse and Amazons are broken rosters, but we must stick to official rules, so I suggested a change to TVMM which can be realistically made.
GW wouldn't listen to me, so the address is not useful. |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 16:13 |
|
"Stick to official rules!"
"Change skill TV values because reasons!"
Matt, this is why people are trolling you. You are inconsistent. One day this, other day that. So which one is it tomorrow?
I agree that it would be better to have individual TV and Skill Point cost to individual skills. That would perhaps help balance out things like block for example. But your requests to the ruleset are unreasonable. Christer said this many times, FUMBBL is a reference implementation of the Blood Bowl ruleset. TV values are a part of that. But I'm really done arguing you on this one and other changes. What we have is fine. Come back in 6 months and let's talk then, based on more evidence. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 16:14 |
|
| Zelmor wrote: |
My final position is that 15 game seasons are fine. Redraft should be 1250k. Complaints should be collected in a mason jar for 6 months before being posted online. Some time to reflect is always beneficial. |
Most of these complaints have been known for the last 4(?) years. 
Different people will have different ideas on what the parameters should be. Most of them will be based on preference.
It is unlikely that anyone will come up with an argument persuasive enough to warrant changing the current parameters before the next set of rules hit.
So, the solution is likely to be "suck it up" |
_________________
NO seasons! - Old style skill progression! - Secret League - All Stars 20th Anniversary Bowl - 12th March! |
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 16:16 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 16:23 |
|
| Zelmor wrote: | "Stick to official rules!"
"Change skill TV values because reasons!"
Matt, this is why people are trolling you. You are inconsistent. One day this, other day that. So which one is it tomorrow?
|
I'm not inconsistent. I offer ideas which are rejected, so I try to find alternatives, with the limit of sticking to official rules. For me, we should have just used a TV cap and limited the skill slots and stat boosts.
Re-Draft, which is supposed to trim freaks, failed and minmaxing is super common, I'm trying to suggest ideas to counter freaks and minmaxed teams. It's all perfectly consistent. I even explained the reasons, I didn't say: "Do this just because I say to do it".
| Quote: | | TV values are a part of that. But I'm really done arguing you on this one and other changes. What we have is fine. Come back in 6 months and let's talk then, based on more evidence. |
For your information, in LRB4 there were 2 TVs on FUMBBL: 1 the normal TV, another TV was a virtual TV site-made to pair teams, supposed to be more accurate. If it was made then, it could be used again. It's not unreasonable.
What we have is not fine, but I guess you don't really care about balanced games, so you don't see the issue.
Personally, I'm not here to waste 1 hour facing a super minmaxed Norse or Amazon team and I'd like not to face teams with 2 players with 5-6 skills each despite Re-Draft. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 17:36 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Personally, I'm not here to waste 1 hour facing a super minmaxed ... |
The irony is staggering.
Apart from that, we currently have 30 official rosters in the game. And if you only have issues with two of them, I'd say that hardly justifies a change.
There will always be a top dog, in any environment and under any kind of rules. You're just mad at the current one.
Even if you were right on the current issue, and you're not, this doesn't make the situation any special, Other issues would arise under a 12-games season, and you would be quick to point them out again in 48 hours.
But, just for fun, let's assume you are in good faith. Here's my serious answer: You think this approach will, in time, get us closer and closer to balance, but you are deluded. It just shifts the blame to something else over and over and over, in an infinite circle of complaining. |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on Feb 17, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 17:38 |
|
29 official rosters, to be accurate.
No wonder that people not playing in the Box say there is no need to change things.
They don't face minmaxed Amazons and Norse teams, no problem for them.
They play only in League and talk about the Box, funny!
Only 2 rosters, yes, but very common, nowadays, since most games happen at low TV now.
Perfection is impossible to achieve, but it's not an excuse for keeping things as they are.
There is room to improve the Box pairings in terms of proper TV calculation.
Random skills, especially when spammed, give a big edge to the teams able to spam them.
At least let's price the skills as they should be priced, then match the teams by the right TVs. Just for purpose of pairing the teams. Re-Draft's players' costs would not be affected. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Feb 17, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 17:46 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | 29 official rosters, to be accurate.
No wonder that people not playing in the Box say there is no need to change things.
They don't face minmaxed Amazons and Norse teams, no problem for them.
They play only in League and talk about the Box, funny!
Only 2 rosters, yes, but very common, nowadays, since most games happen at low TV now.
Perfection is impossible to achieve, but it's not an excuse for keeping things as they are.
There is room for improve the Box pairings in terms of proper TV calculation.
Random skills, especially when spammed, give a big edge to the teams able to spam them.
At least let's price the skills as they should be priced, then match the teams by the right TVs. |
I play plenty of box and you're wrong. But wait, you'll shift to what I've seen you do multiple times while arguing with people while spectating. You'll claim you're better at the game than me and say my opinion doesn't matter. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 17:50 |
|
Your 320 Box games don't look so many when compared to my 2452 Box games.
My Box games played are 7.66 x the games played by you.
So, if you think you play a lot, I play way way more than you. 
I'm wrong because I'm just suggesting to price properly the random G and S skills for Box pairings, ok, I'm wrong then. |
|
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 17:56 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Your 320 Box games don't look so many when compared to my 2452 Box games.
My Box games played are 7.66 x the games played by you.
So, if you think you play a lot, I play way way more than you.
I'm wrong because I'm just suggesting to price properly the random G and S skills for Box pairings, ok, I'm wrong then. |
You're wrong because you're wrong. I'm pointing out you resort to attacking the speaker, an easy logical fallacy to fall into when you're wrong.
And you are wrong. There's a reason people consistently don't agree with you on these threads. And its because what you want for the game isn't what everyone else wants. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 18:09 |
|
i'd say it's still premature to make strong conclucions on these topics until most teams have been through several redraft cycles; it also really doesn't take many games at all for amazon/norse to have a few great players. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 18:11 |
|
Yes, but they should not have great players and a support crew of team mates with discounted skills as well, it's too much. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 18:11 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
They play only in League and talk about the Box, funny! |
Yup.
Because the rules are not designed for leagues like this.
If the plan is to stick to the official rules then it is not going to work for a lot of people.
It is going to be a horrible compromise that some can live with and some can't.
Even for people who do play in they Box, your opinions won't matter much because they play mostly BBT so won't meet your season 2+ teams.
Some mostly play Rumbbles.
Some go to [L]eague and mostly play...
Non-progression,
2016 progression,
No seasons,
draft leagues,
1600TV cap
etc.
You are moaning because you want to be able to play a lot of games and get them quickly.
It that is important to you, you're gonna have to compromise.
| MattDakka wrote: |
Only 2 rosters, yes, but very common, nowadays, since most games happen at low TV now. |
Weren't you the guy telling us it was going to be 98% dwarves?  |
_________________
NO seasons! - Old style skill progression! - Secret League - All Stars 20th Anniversary Bowl - 12th March! |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 18:15 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Yes, but they should not have great players and a support crew of team mates with discounted skills as well, it's too much. |
This is the central point for you isn't it
You're mad that some teams have some great players. You think they "shouldn't exist" or whatever. But they can exist, and so they do. You can't re-write the rulebook, so you're stuck with them
This thread, and all the other similar ones, are futile |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2025 - 18:35 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Yes, but they should not have great players and a support crew of team mates with discounted skills as well, it's too much. |
how reliable is your evidence that they in fact do?
right now it feels like redrafts are quite new, so many of the teams would've had a first power redraft, it'll take some time for things to normalize properly.
Also it really doesn't take much to have a few great players and a few discounted linos with good randoms; quite a lot of teams can do so. And lower game count would simply make the dominance of early game teams stronger, not weaker I'd suspect; so I stand by the point: you're forcing a conclusion too early instead of waitin gto observe in detail. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Now recruiting - Gre...
Search
