Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
https://talkfantasyfootball.org/
(Bolding mine)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.
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:The CRP didn't come carved in stone from Mt Olympus.
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.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.
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!"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.
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:It depends on what your objective is. For me, boring is as big a crime as underperformance.
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: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!"
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'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.
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.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.
Its not that I don't believe in math, its that I don't believe that: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.