Narrow Tier BB - 2012

[plasmoid]

Hi Doubleskulls,
I've much enjoyed the thread where you crunched numbers with Dode. Very interesting.
But I think you're getting a bit carried away by the analysis [And I think it's a telling sign that you believe you understand Koadahs motivations better than he does himself]

I've hosted enough TT tournaments and talked to enough coaches that I'm confident that a weak team will get played less than a tier 1 team, (unless said tier 1 team is percieved to be staggeringly boring). I'm also quite confident that as teams get closer to tier 1, they'll attract more coaches - the kind of coaches who think 'I can surprise everyone because I have the key to playing this team' or 'it would be awesome to win this tournament with something that isn't an überteam'. But they'll rarely go with a team so bad that they going 2/0/7 will be a moral victory.

I believe I know enough coaches to know that teams that are tier 1.5 or 'top of tier 2' will attract more coaches than bottom of tier 3 will. Not as many as good tier 1 teams - I know. But I'm not looking for perfect distribution. I'm looking for more variety.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

I'm confident that a weak team will get played less than a tier 1 team,

So am I. What I looked at, though, was tier 1-1.5 teams. That's where you saw that there was a very weak correlation between win% and popularity. The strong correlation was between cas difference and popularity. So while I agree that the non-Tier 1 (and T1.5) teams will be less popular, once the win%s get roughly equal (i.e. in the 45-55% bracket) then people aren't selecting teams based on effectiveness.

I believe I know enough coaches to know that teams that are tier 1.5 or 'top of tier 2' will attract more coaches than bottom of tier 3 will. Not as many as good tier 1 teams - I know. But I'm not looking for perfect distribution. I'm looking for more variety.

I completely agree with you here, and I think that bringing the T2/3 teams up towards T1/1.5 levels will increase their popularity, but only to a degree. Where there is big disparity of variety is within the upper tiers. That disparity correlates with cas difference.

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion - regarding Khemri and Ogres:
It's an understatement to say that I disagree with your conclusions, to the point where even attempting the argument would be pointless. Your doubts about the teams are duly noted, and for now I'll leave it at that.

I have a spectacularly hard time believing that MA3=>4 (and the Thick Skulls) would suddenly bump their win percentage by 20% or more. Nor do I agree that tied up TGs is Khemris biggest weakness. It's one weakness among several, but particularly defining (and a lot of their poor mobility remains, even with the ability to make the 2+ dodge).

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.

True. But a broken team against a useless team coming out reversed. It's remarkable (but not impossible) at least that we happened upon the rare freak result.

I do hope to have you on board for playtest tournament 2. It will be interesting to see if you can get more out of them at mid-high TV play than atropabelladonna could at low-mid range.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
I have no problem with any of those conclusions
Thanks for chiming in
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi guys,
more replies to concerns raised:

The.Tok said:

Why not stand firm or break tackle? do you think it would be too powerful? they will skill up slowly anyway...

In all honesty, I think those would be equally fitting.
To my mind there are 2 advantages to grab.
1. It helps bring one of the 'new' skills into play.
2. More importantly: Grab prevents Mummies from using their G-access to take frenzy. I know there are people who are concerned at the thought of block frenzy mummies.

Cheers
Martin

[Darkson]

2. More importantly: Grab prevents Mummies from using their G-access to take frenzy. I know there are people who are concerned at the thought of block frenzy mummies.

I think that's a good reason not to give them Grab - why remove what is a legitimate skill route?
(That said, personally I house-ruled Frenzy into S as well as G, so I don't see it as that scary.)

[plasmoid]

Concerning halflings:
Juriel said:

Halflings getting AG4 seems like the wrong approach to take. There is no way to position against them, really, they'll just walk through.

For the record, the decision was also based on fluff. Halfling catchers were exceptionally agile in 2nd ed.
But, IMO, if you can position against snotlings (who dodge anywhere on a 2+) then you can against halflings too. Bottom line, to me, is that there are several ways to deal with a MA5, ST2, AV6 blockless player with +1 to his injuries.

Thadrin said:

I remain unconvinced that Ag4 would not make them too good (as in, better than I think they should be).

Even if they were, I'm not sure that would make them better than I want them to be
But playtesting on these should be interesting.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Darkson,
fair question.
Because I'm trying my best to make compromises that will be paletable. I've had a fair few people trembling at the thought of G-mummies. This alliviates some of their concern.

[koadah]

People do not pick less successful teams because of win%

I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Obviously win% is not going to be the only reason for picking a team. People will look at fun potential, durability, killer potential, etc, etc.

But opportunity to win is a factor. I am sure there are people who would still play the team if they expected to go 0/0/6. But not as many as would play if they expected to at least go 1/0/5 or 1/1/4.

If your stats are coming from swiss tournaments then I'd say they're probably a bit iffy anyway. By the time you get to 0/0/5 you're probably in with a fair chance of a result in game 6. So IMO that format improves the viability of the team.

I don't want to use a team that goes 0/0/9 every season. I wouldn't use that team for very long. Even if I can dream of 1/1/7 that increases my chance of using them. A better team means that I can use them in a stronger league an not get whitewashed. i.e. more games, more diversity.

[Darkson]

I've had a fair few people trembling at the thought of G-mummies.

Wusses.

[Darkson]

I don't want to use a team that goes 0/0/9 every season. I wouldn't use that team for very long.

But we don't have any teams now that would go 0/0/9 in the hands on an average coach, unless it's an average coach in a league of above-average coaches all using T1, in which case the average coach is in trouble whatever roster they take.

I think you're over-stating how bad the T3 rosters are to make your case (all-Snots excepted).

[plasmoid]

Hi Doubleskulls, regarding PiOn.

You may be right about Av7, but as I've said elsewhere I don't think the problem can only be fixed by adjusting the damage causing skills and needs another mechanic to address properly.

Heh, well you must admit that I (unlike Smeborg ) am working this from several angles

That being said, just fixing PiOn could concievably make all the difference. I mean, popularity seems to go hand in hand with dishing out damage and being able to suck up damage. Now, in an environment where (arguably) damage is too easy/cheap to come by, I think it makes perfect sense to a) tap into that 'broken' advantage and b) to pick a team that can deal with same said advantage.
Makes perfect sense ( - which doesn't necessarily make it true, I know).

Frankly, the more we talk about this, the more I'm inclined to ditch my own solution and go back to LRB4 PiOn. The stats are pretty similar anyway.
I'd be tempted to tweak it in same way to make it just a tad better, but then again: KISS!

I know this will make it a much less popular skill. But it was taken in LRB4. And I think it will be taken more in an environment where fouling isn't as lethal. I do think we would still see dedicated hitters, but it would certainly make more room for other tactics too.

Voyagers_uk said (and Spubbbba seems to agree):

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.

Agreed. I was one of those who argued that something slightly less deadly than 3rd ed would be a good thing. In retrospect though, my experience with high TV play in pretty much any edition has been very brutal. Pitch clearings and what-not. I regret not make that connection when we all developed LRB5.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

People do not pick less successful teams because of win%

I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Obviously win% is not going to be the only reason for picking a team. People will look at fun potential, durability, killer potential, etc, etc.

But opportunity to win is a factor. I am sure there are people who would still play the team if they expected to go 0/0/6. But not as many as would play if they expected to at least go 1/0/5 or 1/1/4.

If your stats are coming from swiss tournaments then I'd say they're probably a bit iffy anyway. By the time you get to 0/0/5 you're probably in with a fair chance of a result in game 6. So IMO that format improves the viability of the team.

I don't want to use a team that goes 0/0/9 every season. I wouldn't use that team for very long. Even if I can dream of 1/1/7 that increases my chance of using them. A better team means that I can use them in a stronger league an not get whitewashed. i.e. more games, more diversity.

This point: viewtopic.php?p=631406#p631406
And the stats are from your link - FUMBBL B stuff.

[plasmoid]

Hi Spubbbba,

What about the 10TV skill idea that was floating about a couple of months back? I was less keen on the 30Tv skills but liked the idea of the rubbish ones (VLL, NoS, catch, passblock, diving catch etc) being 10K cheaper, possibly allowing 2 to be chosen as 1 skill choice as well.
It might help add a little variety and encourage people to experiment with other skills, plus would be less of a punishment for not taking the same dull most efficient choices (block, dodge, guard, Claw and MB).

It's an interesting suggestion, but getting the list right would be dangerous work.
As an alternative I like the thought of letting weak skills come with an SPP bonus, (so, for example, take Sprint and collect 3 SPPs). Admittedly not that useful in a setting where everybody can get to 6 skills, but I'm not completely sold on the thought of players with 10 skills.

Another interesting way to encourage skill diversity is to create a short list of trait-like skills that come at a +10K premium. Not bad if you take a little, but pretty expensive if you take a lot. Just 1 or 2 skills in each category.

Either way, I think this messes with the game in a much more fundamental way than anything I'm trying to do, so while I was briefly tempted, I don't dare add it to NTBB.
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Doubleskulls,
I'm glad to see that we're on the same page concerning SG.

You said:

My principle concern with the rule is the effect on Deathroller. I think it should be okay since need a double and that would mean no Block or Diving Tackle. If that does seem overpowered then I'd probably tweak the rule so you don't roll for recovery immediately if you are sent off at the end of the drive.

My thinking is that AFAIK Dwarf performance drops off at high TV. And that the rare few dwarf teams that employ the roller are high-TV Anyway. So this ends up being a case of minor nerf for the short term, minor buff for the long term - which is also what I tried for with Undead and Amazon.
Looks good (on paper), at least to me

Somebody - can't remember who - sorry, the quote got lost in the shuffle indicated that we'd have SG rollers fouling, just to get sent off. Why? They get sent off anyway: SW gets you sent off.

Edit: Also, Thadrin said:

Would prefer new positionals (to the 3rd troll): DP goblins maybe, and a rule allowing the Secret weapon players to stay in the dugout if desired to break the rule of 11 (They're hiding/pretending to be coaches/who can tell goblins apart anyway/whatever).

Different strokes I guess. I prefer the protection the 3rd troll offers over the damage bucket full of foulers could unleash. Either way, notice that the suggested SG helps with exactly those situations where I gobbo is forced to put his weapons on the pitch for a short and pointless drive. Yay

Cheers
Martin