NTBB2.0/2014

Got some ideas for rules? Maybe a skill change or something completely different!!! Tell us here.

Moderator: TFF Mods

voyagers_uk
Da Cynic
Posts: 7462
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Nice Red Uniforms and Fanatical devotion to the Pope!

NTBB2.0/2014

Post by voyagers_uk »

I agree with fanglord

Reason: ''
Image
Ikterus wrote: But for the record, play Voyagers_UK if you have the chance. He's cursed! :P
User avatar
Fassbinder75
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:47 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by Fassbinder75 »

Adding Accurate is too much? The CRP didn't come carved in stone from Mt Olympus.

I like the idea of just adding a skill, and the wardancer comparison works as this roster has lost its unique selling points over the years.

Reason: ''
minimakeovers.wordpress.com
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Fanglord13 and Voyagers_uk,
I'm truly sorry to have lost your support with the latest edition of NTBB.

My plan was to have few or no changes in 2014 - but I got in a bit of a shitstorm, and I felt I was under a lot of pressure to change NTBB, so that it only accomodated balance problems that could be documented. So while I personally miss a few of the Things removed, I think NTBB has been strengthened.

Either way, the changes really aren't for changes sake. Quite the contrary. And the goal of NTBB hasn't changed: To diversify BB by making more tactics and rosters viable. That has been the goal since 2010.

If it is any consolation, then I expect 0 changes to CRP+ in 2015, and maximum 2-3 minor adjustments to the rosters.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
MKL
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:11 pm

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by MKL »

Fassbinder75 wrote:Adding Accurate is too much? The CRP didn't come carved in stone from Mt Olympus.

I like the idea of just adding a skill, and the wardancer comparison works as this roster has lost its unique selling points over the years.
(Bolding mine)
I hate elves, and I think that the Wardancer is an abomination... yet I'm fairly convinced. High Elves need some polish, and a (cheap) super-thrower can be nice and different from the ubiquitous running game.

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by VoodooMike »

Fassbinder75 wrote:The CRP didn't come carved in stone from Mt Olympus.
Woah there, that's crazy talk around here. I'm fairly certain they still burn people at the stake for questioning the BBRC around here, unless you qualify such criticism as being entirely on Jervis' shoulders.
Fassbinder75 wrote:I like the idea of just adding a skill, and the wardancer comparison works as this roster has lost its unique selling points over the years.
The question really becomes "are they underperforming, or are they just boring?". If they're underperforming then it makes sense to add... if they're boring, then it makes sense to change something to something comparably useful, but different. Adding skills to a team that isn't underperforming is likely to result in overperformance, which runs contrary to the stated purpose of NTBB.

Reason: ''
Image
User avatar
Fassbinder75
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:47 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by Fassbinder75 »

VoodooMike wrote: The question really becomes "are they underperforming, or are they just boring?". If they're underperforming then it makes sense to add... if they're boring, then it makes sense to change something to something comparably useful, but different. Adding skills to a team that isn't underperforming is likely to result in overperformance, which runs contrary to the stated purpose of NTBB.
It depends on what your objective is. For me, boring is as big a crime as underperformance. Would a swap from Safe Throw to Sure Hands turn someone's head away from any of the elf rosters? That trade is probably a slight buff to low TV High Elves but Sure Hands is a horribly dull skill. Swapping Safe Throw it for Accurate - that's more sexy because it opens the mind of a potential newbie coach (even if the actual benefit isn't as large as it appears). Adding Accurate says "play this team because they throw awesome!"

I'm not really bothered with the analysis paralysis that comes with a quixotic desire for statistical balance across 24+ teams, I'd rather there was a 'benevolent dictatorship' that essentially picks winners periodically and balance shifts with it. People pick up new teams that were unfashionable in the past and the game stays fresh because new metas appear and are subsequently exploited.

I don't think a SH, ST, Acc 6348 piece is nearly as broken as a Blodging 8347 Leaper, but as you say it's not the goal of NTBB to sex up unfashionable rosters.

Reason: ''
minimakeovers.wordpress.com
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by VoodooMike »

Fassbinder75 wrote:It depends on what your objective is. For me, boring is as big a crime as underperformance.
I think those are crimes to everybody, but in this case we're talking about whether or not an added skill is necessary or if swapping out a skill for another is sufficient to satisfy both conditions. All I'm saying is that if the elves aren't underperforming but are boring, then we need to swap, not add... unless what we're adding is completely trivial, and since we're not all that confident about which skills have which effect on overall performance, it's probably an unnecessary risk.
Fassbinder75 wrote:Would a swap from Safe Throw to Sure Hands turn someone's head away from any of the elf rosters? That trade is probably a slight buff to low TV High Elves but Sure Hands is a horribly dull skill. Swapping Safe Throw it for Accurate - that's more sexy because it opens the mind of a potential newbie coach (even if the actual benefit isn't as large as it appears). Adding Accurate says "play this team because they throw awesome!"
Adding Block, Claw and Tentacle would make them REALLY appealing! The problem is their awesomeness would come from the fact that they win more than other teams even under a poor coach. I'm all for interesting and interesting has to take a second seat to balance... the balance doesn't have to be razor sharp, but the game stops being interesting to more people when its less of a test of skill than a test of roster selection, than it gains. At least, IMHO.
Fassbinder75 wrote:I'm not really bothered with the analysis paralysis that comes with a quixotic desire for statistical balance across 24+ teams, I'd rather there was a 'benevolent dictatorship' that essentially picks winners periodically and balance shifts with it. People pick up new teams that were unfashionable in the past and the game stays fresh because new metas appear and are subsequently exploited.
That's just a side-handed way of saying you don't believe in math and you think eyeballing skills and changing stuff around nigh-arbitrarily will make it all work out in the end. Do you think that's worked out well thus far? The imbalances aren't trivial, and there's no real shifting in those "metas" within given versions of the LRB... people tend to find things and latch right on to the winning strategies. It's just different philosophies, I suppose... in my mind balance should come first, then diversity.. but neither should be done without a mind to the other as is too often the case.
Fassbinder75 wrote:I don't think a SH, ST, Acc 6348 piece is nearly as broken as a Blodging 8347 Leaper, but as you say it's not the goal of NTBB to sex up unfashionable rosters.
No, but its goals are almost as arbitrary, since it proposes to fix balance only at low TV levels. Sexing up rosters is almost a more utilitarian goal.

Reason: ''
Image
Jas1279
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by Jas1279 »

All good discussion, I guess we'll see where NTBB 2015 ends up when the draft comes out :)

Reason: ''
User avatar
Fassbinder75
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:47 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: NTBB2.0/2014

Post by Fassbinder75 »

VoodooMike wrote: That's just a side-handed way of saying you don't believe in math and you think eyeballing skills and changing stuff around nigh-arbitrarily will make it all work out in the end. Do you think that's worked out well thus far? The imbalances aren't trivial, and there's no real shifting in those "metas" within given versions of the LRB... people tend to find things and latch right on to the winning strategies. It's just different philosophies, I suppose... in my mind balance should come first, then diversity.. but neither should be done without a mind to the other as is too often the case.
Its not that I don't believe in math, its that I don't believe that:
a) we have enough math - as in we don't have enough to make fully informed choices
b) and following on from a, we can't easily draw conclusions as to what changes might be effective. Plasmoid's blunt instrument Safe Throw - Sure Hands swap is evidential to me of that.

There are so many variables to a blood bowl match, almost as many as a NFL game, and they are certainly tracked - but it doesn't seem to be available (data volume may be an issue). How many times does a LOS zombie get blocked a game? How many Foul Appearance rolls does an opponent make? Do good opponents force more dodges? The sort of thing that would give an analytical mind something more to work with.

I absolutely believe in balance over diversity because balance will feed into diversity eventually, its just that I think that the tools available aren't of a value far and away above 'the eye test'.

Reason: ''
minimakeovers.wordpress.com
Post Reply