Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Apr 08, 2025 - 10:42 |
 
|
| MattDakka wrote: | That's true but, while a fresh TV 1000 team with 0 games played facing a fresh TV 1000 team with 0 games played is a "new team experience", is not necessarily a "fair game experience".
TV 1000 Amazons or Norse with 0 games facing TV 1000 Chaos with 0 games, for example. |
That's a problem with the game design fundamentally though. Two starting TV teams should be pretty well matched, and they were better matched than now in every edition back to 3rd edition.. It's not Christers fault that the designers made Amazons and Norse... two of the best starter races in the game already EVEN better to the point they're completely broken. There will always be teams that peak at different TVs, stronger starters and weaker finishes etc... but the win percentage of a tier 1 or 2 race at rookie level (using GWs official tiers) should not exceed 60% ever. It's not even meant to exceed 55%. Though 55 to 60 is somewhat forgivable.
Starting match ups can often be a little more dicey due to the lack of skills in most teams and due to player price increase in other teams the lack of RRs lots of teams have access too.
Personally I think this edition benefits from 1150 Starting lineups. It would allow more variance.. also the rule around TV less that 1000 could be applied to 1150... It would give a few teams better starting rosters.
As for amazons... I don't think there is anything christer can do about them. They will be used as an exploit. I've played a number of games against 900 to 1000tv zons with 6+ skills. It's a near impossible match up for a lot of teams to face.... Id actually be happy if amazons were just banned the same way as Mega stars are until they're fixed. It's the only solution. But I know this wont happen... |
_________________
 |
|
EastCoast
Joined: Feb 14, 2010
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 18:41 |
|
| Quote: | | Id actually be happy if amazons were just banned the same way as Mega stars are until they're fixed. |
Forgive me for interjecting, I'm not a regular here, but isn't part of the problem the decision to ban Mega Stars? I'm reading the OP, and with Mega Stars that Orc team was going to field 4 block blitzers, 4 str 4 big uns, Morg, Bomber, and a keg. Super Vamps or not, that Orc team would have had more than enough tools in the toolbox to go toe to toe.
Yeah, Amazons suck design-wise, but if they are picking block at 20TV to get blodge, they are opening themselves up to facing Mega Stars, which curiously have been banned here, all while complaining that there is no counter to Amazons. I get that Hakflem in particular is a menace, but the threat of facing Mega Stars is a check on how you skill up your players. It's like y'all are trying to pound a LRB6 shaped peg into a BB2020 shaped hole. Regardless, really interesting discussion with some thought provoking points. |
|
|
BeanBelly
Joined: Nov 14, 2019
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 20:49 |
|
Mega Stars brought a whole other set of problems. Like how a bash team e.g. Chorf can get a fast player like Hackflem.
There was period before banning mega-stars where snotlings with Morg 'n' Thorg dominated 'Morglings'
And Bombers (on good rosters) were quite prevalent, it made games too much of a lottery. |
_________________
Painting myself into a corner |
|
EastCoast
Joined: Feb 14, 2010
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 21:20 |
|
If you played through it, I'd certainly defer to your experience, but a couple questions. Would Morglings still dominate with Morg at 380 now rather than 340? They don't dominate anywhere else that I've seen. Was Morgling domination driven by TV match making? Would the now much weaker Chaos Dwarf roster still be too powerful with Hakflem? Personally, I'd say do a full BB2020 implementation. Regardless of season length, each team redrafts after 16 games, roster management is part of the game. No more TV match making, if you're in the box, you're in the box. All the stars. Then if it unbalances, and give it more than a week, see about doing something. I'd play here in that scenario because no one else offers that online, but as it currently is, I'd rather play BB3 or tabletop. Just my two bits. |
|
|
BeanBelly
Joined: Nov 14, 2019
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 21:29 |
|
I recall the feeling was that MB+2 was very much broken, so that price still isn't enough deterrent. RRR I think were badly dominated. I gave it one go, got to the final, lost to ANOTHER similar team : ) purplegoo if I recall got to a FUMBBL Cup Final with rookie Ogres? something like that. A bit silly, even though he is a great coach.
Rumour is that another edition of BB box set is coming out soon. So I expect we stay with the current implementation for now and see what the GW come out with. |
_________________
Painting myself into a corner
Last edited by BeanBelly on Apr 09, 2025; edited 2 times in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 21:41 |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 21:57 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Probably something worse.  |
New passing table. Roll a die:
6: accurate pass
5: inaccurate pass
4: pass deviates wildly behind you
3: fumble (because that's somehow worse?!)
2: hit yourself in the head with the ball, fall over make an injury roll for the passing player
1: your impudent attempt to actually pass the ball in a blood bowl match summons an angry daemon who rips the stadium asunder. Scatter the pass and then retire your team.
 |
|
|
EastCoast
Joined: Feb 14, 2010
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 22:01 |
|
I mean, I'm not really sure anyone can argue with feelings. Stars have had their prices adjusted, Bombardier lost the +1 to armor or injury. Like I'm looking at NAF stats, and yeah all stunties (except the poor Gobbos) are at the bottom of what used to be tier 1.5ish, so they aren't perpetual doormats anymore, but none of them seem to be going bananas despite having access to a Mega Star. Seems like the current ban may be an overreaction to the original rules release, but you all do you. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 09, 2025 - 22:12 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Probably something worse. |
New passing table. Roll a die:
6: accurate pass
5: inaccurate pass
4: pass deviates wildly behind you
3: fumble (because that's somehow worse?!)
2: hit yourself in the head with the ball, fall over make an injury roll for the passing player
1: your impudent attempt to actually pass the ball in a blood bowl match summons an angry daemon who rips the stadium asunder. Scatter the pass and then retire your team.
|
The whole concept of throwing the ball forward is ridiculous foreign nonsense.
The ball should ONLY be thrown backwards.
This isn't cricket. |
_________________
20 Year Anniversary! - 2016 Nostalgia Bowl - Weds 23rd April! -- All Star Bowl - Always recruiting! |
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2025 - 06:41 |
|
| koadah wrote: | The whole concept of throwing the ball forward is ridiculous foreign nonsense.
The ball should ONLY be thrown backwards |
This would truely change the game. As much as I like Rugby over Football, I have feeling that - from a game design perspective - it would either hit agi teams too hard, or would need fundamental changes... So to Stick to rugby: why should there me only one pass per turn? Are dedicated throwers and the split between AG and PA relevant anymore?
So what about this: As long as the pass is backwards and a quickpass, it will be regarded as handover. Still only a maximum of one pass is allowed, BUT the maximum total of handovers + pass is two. (So without a pass you can do there handovers and yes backward quickpasses do not need a throw roll!) 
Edit: And backward means backward... Not 'no forward passing' |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2025 - 11:13 |
|
|
CrisisChris
Joined: Dec 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2025 - 13:00 |
|
Just to change not too much. It is two now, but limited to one handoff and one pass. Keeping the total, but adding some freedom in regards of what you do with these two ball handling actions. Plus the benefit of lateral/backwards short distances do not need to roll for passing... It would change the game... for the better?
Edit: But we are a bit off topic now. |
_________________
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2025 - 00:44 |
|
(Just an anecdotal follow-up example to my previous posts, one team of mine:
Game 1: my 0-game team plays an 8-game team
Game 2: my 1-game team plays a 0-game team
Game 3: my 2-game team plays another 2-game team
Game 4: my 3-game team plays a 9-game team
Game 5: my 4-game team plays a 12-game team
Game 6: my 5-game team plays a 14-game team
All of course within the set TV limits, but only 2 out of 6 of their first games are against similiar opponents in team development terms. And the discrepancy in the other four matches is seriously egregious, not a minor difference. This is the sort of matchmaking that feels pretty silly to me: there may theoretically be "seasons" in Blackbox now but this sort of sequence of games doesn't feel anything like the experience of playing an actual season with a team and developing it in that sort of environment.) |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2025 - 01:59 |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2025 - 02:49 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Which other teams were in the draw?
Maybe it was those teams or nothing. |
I don't know: it wasn't something I was recording and I could only speak to the other teams I activated on my end anyway.
But I have been activating five or six teams every draw, and I've certainly noticed individual draws where for instance I have ended up playing one of my sub-five game teams against a thirteen- or fourteen-game opponent who is 70 or 80 TV higher than me. But in that same draw I'd also activated a couple of my own end-of-season teams (equitable in age with that opponent's team) one of which could have played the same opponent with only a 10 or 20 greater TV difference, and not even close to either team's TV match-up limit. I appreciate the point of matchmaking whatever teams are available, but a ten-game age difference seems (to me!) far more substantial that a marginally wider TV gap, if you have to pick one match-up over the other.
Anyway, I was just posting it as an example of the sort of experience I had in the back of my mind when I was making my earlier ruminations.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Team Strength - Rebo...
Search
