Narrow Tier BB - 2012

[Tourach]

Playing tournaments i just find the game really frustrating atm, ntbb could help with this. The conservatives, who thinks the big gap in the tiers helps the game, while it actually (all stats shows this) makes the game less diverse (in both race choices, tactics and development as mentioned above).
I just don't understand how you can actually mean the things you write above, but i guess we just have to agree that we disagree. I can tell you though (now when we are using arguments like these) that I have spoken to over 20 coaches who does not browse these forums regularly, that all agree that the changes in ntbb would make sense in order to improve the game.

[spubbbba]

so understanding you right you would both take the catcher as "If you start with it for free then it is quite nice" !!

No, I take elven catchers for the extra speed (and dodge in the case of wood elves) and a human catcher for MA 8, dodge and agility access. Having catch is a nice little bonus, but not a consideration; I’d happily take them 10K cheaper without it.

For Amazons as they are now I mostly take the catchers for variety and to get easy access to blodge SS and then DT if facing agile teams.
If a zon catcher were identical to a lino expect paying 10 or 20K more for catch then I’d not bother taking them.

If catch was 10K and you could take it with another rubbish 10K skill then I might consider it for variety. Say catch and passblock on a linelf or gutter if I faced a lot of elves. It would still probably be sub optimal so relegated to 3rd or 4th skill when the vital stuff compared to block and dodge had been taken.

[DoubleSkulls]

Playing tournaments i just find the game really frustrating atm, ntbb could help with this. The conservatives, who thinks the big gap in the tiers helps the game, while it actually (all stats shows this) makes the game less diverse (in both race choices, tactics and development as mentioned above).
I just don't understand how you can actually mean the things you write above, but i guess we just have to agree that we disagree. I can tell you though (now when we are using arguments like these) that I have spoken to over 20 coaches who does not browse these forums regularly, that all agree that the changes in ntbb would make sense in order to improve the game.

I agree entirely that making tier 1 narrower - so that the best teams are a bit worse and the worst teams a bit better, seems like a good idea, and particularly helpful for the tournament scene and increasing the diversity within tier 1, but there just isn't a relationship between win% and popularity for the worse performing teams. Making tier 3 a little bit better won't get any more tier 3 teams into tournaments. People play tier 3 because they like it, not because they expect to win. Making them more competitive won't effect popularity until you get them to the same level as tier 1 - and a I, along with a big section of the community really hate that idea.

[DoubleSkulls]

Catch is one of those skills I’d almost never take unless it was on a stunty. It’s just something you would use so infrequently that it is not worth the TV. If you start with it for free then it is quite nice but with just 6 skills to choose from (and few players get that for or are worth the TV if they are) there are always better choices.

+1

so understanding you right you would both take the catcher as "If you start with it for free then it is quite nice" !!

You are paying 20k more for a Linewoman with catch and no other differences, so it isn't free, so I wouldn't take them.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
lots to digest. And lots to reply to. Huge pile, I'll reply as soon as I can.
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'm glad some people like these rules, and I fully accept that they're not for everyone. That being said, I'm getting more positive feedback than I expected, so I'm quite happy with the result. And I'm glad to see that it isn't just me who don't much like the wide tiers that we currently have.

Garion said:

I still think giving TGs Break Tackle is the craziest thing in the whole list. It is just madness. You have players that can Dodge into cages with St5 with ease. They are players that you can no longer tie up reliably at all. Totally insane buff. yes get rid of decay, thick skull to positionals is good too but Break Tackle far too much.

Honestly, I think you're overstating the mobility of an MA4 player who can make one (unskilled) 2+ dodge. Be that as it may.

But I think it's worth noting that you're the only one who has said anything about them being that good.
It's also worth noting, that in the playtest tournament they're in the middle of the pack - and while you might blame that on the coach his dark elf team is in 2nd place in the other group.
(Fun fact: "supremely broken" khemri just played "impossible to fix" Ogres. Ogres win 2-1. Just saying).

But more importantly, a reasonably similar roster was tested in the MBBL. It was optional in season 6, and was the only khemri version for season 7 and 8. In those seasons Tomb Guardians were 3518 Regen, BTkl. Of the 8 teams, one had a winning record. Their combined grand total was W31 T17 L55 = 38,3%.
So, even though MA4 has good synergy with BTkl, and we add in Thick Skull on the Blitzras and Throras on top of that, I don't see an obvious reason for concern.

Cheers
Martin

[Darkson]

Hi Garion, Darkson, Tourach and all,
for the record, I'm not out to truly eliminate the tiers. I'm out to narrow the tiers. n

Never said you were out to eliminate them, but narrowing them is still flawed imo (and I fail to see what I said that deserved arolling eye?).

As I said, as houserules I have no problem with them, and I applaud the effort you're putting into them, but when people start suggesting they could form a future LRB...

[voyagers_uk]

don't misquote me Simon

.....
there was always a feeling post 3ed that there was not enough Blood, I have actually always felt the other way that the damage inflcited was worse and the Ball movement was suffering.

I think your exercise will (and I use this word with caution) "Balance" the experience that people have. Hopefully the results will meet expectations and this could be used to establish a future LRB or at least go some way shaping it.......

my whole message was intended to highlight my support for the increased tactical benefits and hopefully changes in playstyle that would arise from Martins efforts.

Like some others have said the way things are now, you take one of several teams if you want to BASH and others if you want to play ball, that to me was a bad thing and I would like to see certain aspects nerfed as it seems would Martin.

Narrowing the Tiers isn't my goal, I don't do tournaments and cannot see that changing which again is sad. I believe that widening the gameplay is a better goal and that seems to be a side effect of Martin's efforts so I applaud him and it.

Winning and losing aside, isn't more options in gameplay from less restrictive skill choices a good thing?

[garion]

Garion said:

I still think giving TGs Break Tackle is the craziest thing in the whole list. It is just madness. You have players that can Dodge into cages with St5 with ease. They are players that you can no longer tie up reliably at all. Totally insane buff. yes get rid of decay, thick skull to positionals is good too but Break Tackle far too much.

Honestly, I think you're overstating the mobility of an MA4 player who can make one (unskilled) 2+ dodge. Be that as it may.

But more importantly, a reasonably similar roster was tested in the MBBL. It was optional in season 6, and was the only khemri version for season 7 and 8. In those seasons Tomb Guardians were 3518 Regen, BTkl. Of the 8 teams, one had a winning record. Their combined grand total was W31 T17 L55 = 38,3%.
So, even though MA4 has good synergy with BTkl, and we add in Thick Skull on the Blitzras and Throras on top of that, I don't see an obvious reason for concern.

As I said, if they had Ma 3 again then Bt wouldnt be a problem. But Khemri's big weakness at the moment, is that their TGs can be tied up. I assumed this was part of the design and is now usually how people play against them. Stick a linemen on them and try and drag them out of position. This is part of the challangeof playing them, and it is also risky even though they dont have MB anymore, because apart from Av9 players you are running the risk of the players being injured with a few 3 dice blocks every turn. This is taking away their biggest weakness imo. Yes they have poor Ag but they have Sure Hands, so picking up the ball is not a problem most of the time, and dodging is usually out of the question, but that is true of alot of the bashy races. Even in Lrb4 when they all had MB you often had to man mark their TGs at one point or another, only it was more dangerous then. Also Khemri will still suffer against elves as this change makes little difference against them. So make a change that helps more against them, not a change that makes them even harder for the teams that typically sturggle against Khemri, like Humans, low TV chaos and Nurgle.

As for the Ogres, yeah they are still terrible, but in a game of dice anything can happen. In such a small league, played at a low TV 1 result doesn't mean much. For me to be satisfied the TG change is totally broken, i would need to see over 500 games played at all different TV levels. It is just that big a change to their team. For me getting rid of a teams biggest weakness is asking for trouble. This is also why I really dont like the vampire change for narrowing the tiers. I think cheaper RR is a good one and would like to see that in the next rules if it ever happened. But Thick Skull is an amazing boon for them. Though I dont think it is as big as the TG one. Next season stick MB on all the TGs (as players are starting with a few skills so higher tv games are played). Then i think you will see why BT is too much. Players will not want to mark them, and they can dodge anywhere. It will be horrible.

[koadah]

Playing tournaments i just find the game really frustrating atm, ntbb could help with this. The conservatives, who thinks the big gap in the tiers helps the game, while it actually (all stats shows this) makes the game less diverse (in both race choices, tactics and development as mentioned above).
I just don't understand how you can actually mean the things you write above, but i guess we just have to agree that we disagree. I can tell you though (now when we are using arguments like these) that I have spoken to over 20 coaches who does not browse these forums regularly, that all agree that the changes in ntbb would make sense in order to improve the game.

I agree entirely that making tier 1 narrower - so that the best teams are a bit worse and the worst teams a bit better, seems like a good idea, and particularly helpful for the tournament scene and increasing the diversity within tier 1, but there just isn't a relationship between win% and popularity for the worse performing teams. Making tier 3 a little bit better won't get any more tier 3 teams into tournaments. People play tier 3 because they like it, not because they expect to win. Making them more competitive won't effect popularity until you get them to the same level as tier 1 - and a I, along with a big section of the community really hate that idea.

I don't think that is true. There's no way I'm using ogres right now. I just can't see the point of them. They don't look fun to me.

I do use flings a lot but it depends on what I expect opposing coach strength to be. A stronger fling team might be able to get something against stronger coaches. 0/0/9 loses it's appeal after a while.

[koadah]

so understanding you right you would both take the catcher as "If you start with it for free then it is quite nice" !!

You are paying 20k more for a Linewoman with catch and no other differences, so it isn't free, so I wouldn't take them.

+1

[Chris]

I don't know, maybe I'm too proud, but I HATE the idea that I one a game, any game, because some arrogant so and so decided to give me an advantage by handicapping him/herself. Either I won because of a combination of skill and luck, or I didn't. Anything else is unsatisfying.

I don't mind losing. It's part of life, and I do it a lot. I hate winning unfairly. If my opponent respects me, he/she won't wuss out and play a tier 3 team, but instead, meet me on the field with the best team possible, and play the best game possible. If I win, it will be glorious, and if I lose, it will not be because one of us decided to take a tier 3 team, but because of skill and luck!

A really good player could beat you with a tier 3 team.

I am not but have still managed to come 20 something (can't remember now it was many years ago) with goblins in the Blood Bowl at GW. And the best coaches that take stunties have better win rates than I do with tier one teams. Some coaches just seem to be running rings round you and when I find myself outplayed by halflings I am just glad the chap didn't have a 'proper' team! Never mind the guys I play with pact or slann or vampires who I don't have a chance against.

[MattDakka]

I don't know, maybe I'm too proud, but I HATE the idea that I one a game, any game, because some arrogant so and so decided to give me an advantage by handicapping him/herself. Either I won because of a combination of skill and luck, or I didn't. Anything else is unsatisfying.

I don't mind losing. It's part of life, and I do it a lot. I hate winning unfairly. If my opponent respects me, he/she won't wuss out and play a tier 3 team, but instead, meet me on the field with the best team possible, and play the best game possible. If I win, it will be glorious, and if I lose, it will not be because one of us decided to take a tier 3 team, but because of skill and luck!

A really good player could beat you with a tier 3 team.

I am not but have still managed to come 20 something (can't remember now it was many years ago) with goblins in the Blood Bowl at GW. And the best coaches that take stunties have better win rates than I do with tier one teams. Some coaches just seem to be running rings round you and when I find myself outplayed by halflings I am just glad the chap didn't have a 'proper' team! Never mind the guys I play with pact or slann or vampires who I don't have a chance against.

How many times a good player can win with a tier 3 team, though?
Did RandomOracle get on top playing a tier 3 team?
Why most of the good players are attracted by tier 1 teams, if they can win with tier 3 teams?

About the tier debate:
come on, the design idea behind the different tiers is flawed.
As I said in another post, good coaches can handicap themselves even using tier 1 teams: for example with sub optimal roster choices (i.e. a not TV-efficient team), forgoing rerolls, playing as underdogs and without taking inducements.
Stop saying that in a private league a good coach has to play a tier 3 team against weaker coaches, in order to balance the matches, because it's nonsense.

[garion]

thats not the only reason though as said before, some people want to play a substandard team if they dont want to play in a truly competative way, sometimes people need a break from playing with the best of the best all the time.

Also I disagree that people should have to change the rules to make match ups fair. There are more than enough T1 races, there does not need to be any more. The rules tell you which races are for begginers and which are for more experienced coaches. This is all part of the charm of the game.

All the races are different.

If you play a short length league some races will perform better,

If you play a long league other races will perform better.

If you want to play avery good race that is challanging to use, play Khemri or Vamps.

If you want to play a rubbish race that and just play for a laugh because you are tired of competative play then play flings and gobos.

Getting rid of the tiers is getting rid of a huge area of the game that is needed for variety. Why do we need any more Tier 1 teams, really there are more than enough.

[DoubleSkulls]

I don't think that is true. There's no way I'm using ogres right now. I just can't see the point of them. They don't look fun to me.

I do use flings a lot but it depends on what I expect opposing coach strength to be. A stronger fling team might be able to get something against stronger coaches. 0/0/9 loses it's appeal after a while.

People do not pick less successful teams because of win%

In NAF LRB6 tournament play Khemri 22nd most popular, 13th most successful. Orcs are the most popular (by a big margin too) and 12th most successful. Goblins are the 13th most popular team in NAF tournaments under LRB6, but the worst performing. Halflings 15th most popular, 22nd on performance. Ogres 23rd on the performance table are more popular than High Elves (15th in win%, Slann, Vampires, Khemri, Rotters and Underworld. Humans 12th most popular and 19th in performance.

Once you get past about 12th on the win% ladder popularity bears no relationship to performance. This isn't just the odd race out of place - basically the whole bottom half of the table popularity is driven by something other than win%.

You may on a personal level choose Halflings over Ogres because you think they are better at winning, but I suspect its more to do with you finding them more fun to play. Others make the same decision but with different parameters (I'd choose Ogres over 'flings myself), but in aggregate people just don't pick these teams - including many tier 1 teams - because of how good they are, but because of other factors.

Plasmoid's objective of increasing diversity is laudable, and I agree with narrowing tier 1 should help even the distribution of tier 1 teams. However so long as you keep tier 2 & tier 3 worse than average then it really doesn't matter how much worse they are - you just won't make them more popular by small improvements in win%.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
I think it is somewhat pointless to argue about whether narrowing the tiers is a good idea or not. It is obvious from this thread (and others) that there are coaches in both camps. My rules cater to the one side, and I don't think I have much of a chance of converting the other.

Just for the record, bringing up the rear and reining in the front runners isn't really the same thing, and not the same arguments apply. I think reining in the front runners is probably the least controversial on a conceptual level, but on a practical level it is very controversial, because nobody wants to lose their beloved toys. But never mind.

I do think that the tiers being that wide isn't necessary. There will still be challenges built in. And if you want a bigger challenge then handicapping any team is easy. I certainly think that if you need a challenge then your options are currently too limited anyway. I'd rather gimp something interesting than take a 4th season with some stunties. But I'm just repeating myself now. I think the argument has been made fairly extensively by either side.

Garion said:

If someone plays in a group and they are much better than everyone else what would they do if all the races were equal?

They won't be equal.

Cheers
Martin