Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[Jimmy Fantastic]

I think it's fine that some skills suck. This is a good article about magic cards but quite applicable here - http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/a ... /daily/mr5
In summary
1) All The Skills Cannot Be Good
2) Different Skills Appeal to Different Players
3) Diversity of Skill Powers is Key to Discovery
4) Power Levels Are Relative
5) Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player
6) People Like Finding “Hidden Gems”
7) R&D is Only Human

Maybe PO is too good because the BBRC messed up. I don't think that skills like shadowing KoR etc are bad because the BBRC messed up. Everything else like wanting to increase the effectiveness of Pass/Catch or making "bad" skills less expensive is unnecessary in my opinion.

[Ghost]

I agree. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion, that doing dramatic changes like changing skill-cost is overly complicated and not needed. And based on personal preference in regards to play-style. Sure some skills are taken a lot less than others, but that will probably always be the case - until we reach a game of chess. Beginning to mess with pass-mechanisms, for instance, is way, way overcomplicated in my opinion. Sometimes passing win games. Most often good players pass as little as possible, because passing is an uneeded diceroll and a risk. That does not mean, that passing can not be very, very effective. At times a pass is the only way to win a game. I think your list, even if derived from a different subject, is spot on Jimmy.

What I would simply like, is to address the bashstacking. Because IMO, it falls well out of the boundaries of the game. And this is my opinion Dode, I will not be derailed into gathering a 100 page thesis on highly debateable statistics - and I know I am not alone. Removing Pile On seems like a mighty fine idea. If people still want it, for some reason, the stacking needs to be addressed. Another idea; You have to declare a Pile On before you know the AV/INJ roll. That is; First you must decide to Pile On for a shot at rerolling AV, before you know the roll. If you opt no, and break av, you have a shot at rerolling INJ. Now that goes against the general rule in BB of making rerolls / modifiers after knowing the roll, but I don't see why Pile On could not be an exception. It should downtone its potency evenly across the teams. You would go prone, but can choose the between the two rolls. But... it is complicated. Again, removing Pile On have the beauty of simplicity, and it is still the best suggestion I have seen.

[garion]

I also agree with most of what you say jimmy, though feel the lack of traits has gone someway in causing problems with the rules, I personaly prefered more intersting and fun skills even like the old Stand Firm for example, it just made games more enjoyable. The other main issue really is just Pilling On as Ghost says. I don't really think passing needs to change either, it is already effective if you actually want to play that way. Its just the better coaches generally don't because stalling is just a better way of winning.

I found it quite funny that in season 3 of 3DB chaos are already dominating, I will be listening -in more for future round ups of their season to see how long they dominate for before they start all their teams from fresh again or tell the chaos coach to pick a new race lol

[dode74]

Ghost -

And this is my opinion Dode,

You're entitled to it, and I have NEVER said you were wrong to hold it. What I have done is ask you to justify it, and it is that justification (sprints) where I feel you are wrong, and I have explained why. I'd never tell anyone their opinion is wrong, or that they can't hold that opinion unless their own justification passes my own "standards." There are billions of people who have opinions that they can't reasonably justify (imo), and they acknowledge that lack of justifiability by calling their beliefs "faith" or "religion". I'm quite certain there are things I hold true which I can't properly justify, but they don't impact on anyone else so they are pretty harmless. Your own belief, that this mechanic should change, would impact on others and, as such, you need to convince them that it is in their interests.
Regarding your "remove PO all together" proposal, I think that would reduce the overall attrition rate too much. There has to be a certain rate of player turnover in order to make perpetual leagues work at all. Plasmoid's suggestion meets your criteria ("It should downtone its potency evenly across the teams.") though.

garion -

I don't really think passing needs to change either, it is already effective if you actually want to play that way. Its just the better coaches generally don't because stalling is just a better way of winning.

I'd prefer to keep the passing discussion to just the one thread, if that's ok

I found it quite funny that in season 3 of 3DB chaos are already dominating

The assumption is that they will continue to do so. Season 4 (I think) saw a Chaos team win OCC, but that was with limited teams available (just 8 intially , then DE were added). Season 9 (I think it was) of OCC saw 5 Chaos teams in Division 1 (for various reasons, including the changeover to LE and lots of teams being rerolled, but also because they did well), but they still didn't win (seasons 5-9 were all won by Flix' Wood Elves). Season 11 sees no Chaos teams in Div 1. My point is that it is far too soon to judge the 3DB record - 3 seasons is nothing.

[Ghost]

Dode. You feel I am wrong on the Sprinttables. Just as I think you are wrong on your tables. Yourthink the justification doesn't pass your standards. I tell you what. Yours doesn't pass mine. Do you see the similarity? And how that makes us disagree with subjective opinions?

What I refuse is to spend all me free time gathering thats that pleases you. You have not shown any that have made me change my mind just one bit, and I have told you why. So accept that we have different opinions. You making the same references to the same graphs and tables a million times, does not make me think you are any more right. There are so many factors you don't weigh in in your overly simplistic mantra of win% in my opinion. So stop demanding gathering of stats, because yours are no better. We have different subjective opinions, and you can't back yours up any better than us. Accept it, and learn to live with it. Here you go again, derailing what is trying to be constructive. If you need to hear it again; I understand you have a different opinion, and I respect it. There you go.
Again; that is my opinion Dode. Why do you get so defensive, you seem to have an awful lot at stake personally here. It is not your child (don't take it literally) that we are after here, is it? Some people think the game could be improved by adressing a skillmechanic related to a certain stack of skills (by far the most debated part of the LRB 5 + rules, ask yourself why). No tables in the world will never, ever give us the divine answer from god as to what is right and wrong. I understand that you think those graphs hold the answer to everything - but I disagree with you Dode. I have told you many times now, and why I don't see the same things in the stats as you. So don't go there again, you are wastning mine and yours time. You will end up with people asking graphs from you, if you ever suggest something you think could be improved in the game (passing). And whatever you say, you will be met with a "the win% is fine, that was the designgoal, so nothing needs to change" - an arguement you can never prove wrong. And it will be slammed on your head till you get so tired of listening to it, that you will find better things to spend your time on - like it is happening here. So... for the third time; in my opinion bashstacking should be addressed for the better of the game - and I am by far not the only one thinking so.

[mattgslater]

Now, now, no need to get tetchy. I insist it's not a problem in perpetual leagues, challenge or otherwise. Certainly in the over 100 games the OCC has been going for there has been no issue. And before you bring up [R ] again that also had TV limits for games to count. Do you have any stats available for challenge leagues which work as per the rulebook then, since you insist that it is a problem there?

As for it being the only way available, that's the fault of the sites and developers who impose these artificial limitations. Cyanide have been told time and time again, and Christer (who has produced a superb site and I mean no criticism of his work) is at least moving in the right direction with his change to the 15% rule in [R ].

Fair enough. I was speaking of [R], which technically has been pretty close to the basic BB format. Possibly it's a function of [R] culture, though, that even since the change I've noticed there aren't a lot of big mismatches. It matters around the edges, and it makes it easier to try out Star Players in games that count, but generally coaches still look at each other in TV terms.

I've noticed this in my home league, too, though ClawPOMB isn't a problem there largely because the better coaches tend to either play speedy or stymie, or to build silly teams (maybe with ClawPOMB, but Underworld just don't inspire terror). However, if we had a mad POMBer coach who was any good, he'd probably kill our chemistry. When we schedule games, coaches base their decision on three things: opposing coach, race, TV, in that order. I mean, I don't, but the others all do. Not only that, but that's always been the way it was done. On FUMBBL it seems to be TV, race, coach.

In my TT league, the flowchart for accepting a game seems to be:

1) Can I beat that guy? If yes, go to 2.
1a) Will a loss hurt my standings? If no, go to 2.
1b) If yes, note one or two strikes, depending on how far up you're playing.

2) Is it a good racial matchup for me? If yes, go to 3.
2a) If no, is my opponent well below my level as a coach? If yes, go to 3.
2b) If no, note one strike.

3) Is my TV comparison advantageous? (That means different things for different teams). If yes, accept.
3a) If no, note one strike.
3b) Am I the underdog? If no, accept.
3c) If yes, note one strike.

4) Accept.

On [R], it seems to be:

1) Are the two teams among the closest possible TV matchups, or within 100k? If yes, go to 2.
1a) If no, is the TV matchup clearly favorable by your calculus? If yes, go to 2.
1b) If no, decline.

2) Look at the other guy's roster. Do you think you can handle it, assuming equal coaching? If yes, accept.
2b) If no, decline.

[mattgslater]

On Jimmy's point, I think he's got it right. Balance in BB is like The Price Is Right or Blackjack: you want to get close to the balance point, but not going over it is the only do-or-die criterion. It would be better if all skills were worth taking sometimes with some players, but if you throw in a useless skill it's not a tragedy. However, overdoing the killstack was a mistake. Dode74 and most of the rest of us may differ on how much of a mistake it was, it's a problem that creeps into certain popular houserule formats and some standard leagues (sorry, Dode, it's true), and doesn't really manifest in others, but it's not hard to make a fix that won't manifest itself in those other formats, either. Open-and-shut: the emotion swirling around it is just because the subject pits playstyles, formats, and other, less visible, subjective matters (e.g. pixel/pewter lovers vs. black humorists) against each other.

As for Joe's OP, I think that should be the pricklier topic, funny enough.

[Ghost]

I agree with that Matt. And I would like to add, that I like BB to be bloody. I would just like to see the tools for making that happen distributed slightly different. Making Pile On a G skill used on fouls, is an interesting twist I think.

Edit; and Dode. The reference to Religion is silly. There are math to back up what is happening when bashstacking. I am atheist btw, but I am fine with others finding something that adds to their life in spiritual things.

[garion]

I agree with that Matt. And I would like to add, that I like BB to be bloody. I would just like to see the tools for making that happen distributed slightly different. Making Pile On a G skill used on fouls, is an interesting twist I think.

Keep it +St make it a trait, or just play my rules

[Ghost]

Your CRP 2 standard rules are very interesting Garion. I am sorry to go offtopic here, but I have wanted to reply in that thread. Making mutations random does have some merit in this one too though. I will try and get a reply to your rules in the other thread.

[dode74]

ghost -

Dode. You feel I am wrong on the Sprinttables. Just as I think you are wrong on your tables. Yourthink the justification doesn't pass your standards. I tell you what. Yours doesn't pass mine. Do you see the similarity? And how that makes us disagree with subjective opinions?

Absolutely. But you are the one asking for a change, therefore the burden of proof is on you to justify it.

Why do you get so defensive, you seem to have an awful lot at stake personally here. It is not your child (don't take it literally) that we are after here, is it?

I'm neither being defensive nor taking anything personally - why must a stringent argument be personal? What I have at stake is a proposed rule change to a game I enjoy thoroughly

You will end up with people asking graphs from you, if you ever suggest something you think could be improved in the game (passing).

Good thing I provided them then

And whatever you say, you will be met with a "the win% is fine, that was the designgoal, so nothing needs to change"

Depends on whether changing the win% is the argument. The initial CPOMB argument was about CPOMB being dominant - i.e. winning too often. If it's not winning to often then the argument is countered. The next argument was that CPOMB restricts skill choices (which is entirely possible), and I am still awaiting data so that we can check that claim. If it is then there may be merit to changing cpomb for that reason. The win% argument is only valid if it is relevant to the point being made.

Here you go again, derailing what is trying to be constructive.

Actually I made constructive criticism in the final paragraph of my previous post on this thread to you. It seems you may have missed it again.

The reference to Religion is silly. There are math to back up what is happening when bashstacking.

There are probability calculations, certainly, which might predict the effect of a successful block, but there are also statistics which include the totality of the game: i.e. the ability to get that successful block in the first place.

I am atheist btw, but I am fine with others finding something that adds to their life in spiritual things.

I believe we may have found something we agree on

matt -
Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting that you make no mention of the "substitute" option for declined challenges in your league (CRP page 31). There is no such thing in [R ] or Cyanide challenge leagues either (and I am trying to think of a way to admin it in that manner, but it's not easy!). I think that this is a very important part of the process - get challenged by a kill-team and decline, sending them to another kill-team as your proxy.
Do you have examples of cpomb being a continuing problem in standard leagues? And by "continuing" I mean several seasons of dominance, not just a season or 2.

[Ghost]

How will we ever have a constructive debate, on things people find could be improved, if they will always be met with the; "the win% is fine"? The be all, end all. The game is divine as it is, nothing should ever be changed as we can't prove the need. Lets close the rulespart of the forum.

And again I tell you, that the graphs you show of win% is skewed, as they sort themselves. But I am very interested in seeing your reply in your passing thread.

[dode74]

By making arguments not based on a perceived need to change the win%. The skill restriction argument I mentioned above is one such argument which may yet bear fruit. If it proves to be the case that skill choices are being adversely affected (i.e. that many skills remain unchosen, particularly on teams which can only select MB/PO on doubles) then I will happily join the "change cpomb" side of the argument. You seem to think I am entrenched here - I'm not at all. All I do have is that win% is not a reason to change cpomb.

[Ghost]

And we understand you don't think so, for heavens sake. And understand, that others don't see the same in the stats on win% as you. You do seem to use the argument of not changing things based on win% awfully often, though. Forcing us to bring you stats to prove otherwise, as the "burden... blah blah blah".

[Rhyoth]

Ghost would you calm down please ? We're here to have a constructive debate, and i must admit dode is much more constructive than you are : you base a lot of your argumentation on impressions (that may be false), and vague assumption ; that kind of reasonning have good odds of reaching a wrong conclusion. If we all exchange our opinion that way, we can discuss for a hundred year and still produce nothing.
So, yeah, an objective criticism is annoying, but it's needed if you want to reach the good conclusion : believe it or no, but he's trying to help you to improve your reasonning.

So please stop making everything personnal, calm down, and try to bring something more useful to the debate than vague impressions. (BUT, if it's about ClPOMB, it will probably be more useful in a dedicated thread).

Now, let's go back on track, Dode, garion, i don't really share your opinion on Shadowing, Sprint and Big HAnd : here is why :

_ Big Hand :
Only effective when the ball is in opponents Tzs, in reach of your player at the start of his Action : that situation may not come up at all during a match (and when it rains : 6% of the time). Now, if we compare Big Hand with Extra Arms (which is admitedly more versatile) it's only better when the ball is in 2 or more TZ : not a very frequent situation.
On top of that, in order to make this skill "valuable", you need to get to the ball, which is often not easy if it's in several Tzs, and you need a way out

Since this skill is useful in very specific and quite rare situation (let's say once per game at best), and often need other skills to be useful (if you can't get in or get out, the skill has almost no value), why should it cost the same than skills similar which have much wider field of application ?

To conclude, let's remember only Chaotic teams can have this skill on a Normal roll, and the skill is much less valuable to them, due to AG3. OTOH, Gutter Runner may only have it on a double roll, so they can't take it at will, it will still cost them 20 k, and they'll have to skip other valuable options...

_ Sprint :
42 % of failing, so, if we assume there is an average of 1 OTS opportunity/match, it makes the skill effective 0,42 times/match... so, basically, 6 games out of 10, you carry 20k of dead weight in your TV.
Besides, as far as OTS goes, Side step is also very helpful, turnover free, and has soooo many more applications : i can't see how those two skills would worth the same.
Finally, i think it's probably safe to state that Sure Feet+Sprint are almost equivalent to +1MV, or

_ Shadowing :
a) it requires high MV, which often implies low ST/AV
b) it requires you player to be exposed (at least to an easy blitz, but if you want to max out Shadowing effectivness, you'll often to give free Blocks to your opponents)
c) if the opponent Move is not Tactically crucial, he can easily transform it into a free Block
d) the easiest way to get rid of a shadowing is by Blocking/Blitzing him away, and a fair amount of the time, that Block/Blitz would have occured anyway (since Blocks tend to be safer than Dodge).
e) some opponents can afford to be followed several times with low chances of turnover (anyone with AG4 + Dodge)

That being said, I can't deny Shadowing can be very effective sometimes, but it's far from being risk-free, and since it's effectivness tend to be proportionnal to the risk taken, i think it should be taken into account in th price of the skill.
(sure skaven can make Shadowing very effective, but it's also more risky for them, since they have to expose a weak, fragile and tactically very important player).

Last, but not least, sure a player with Block, Dodge, Side Step, Tackle and Shadowing rocks, but is it because of Shadowing, or because of the previous 4 skills ?
(note : if it can ease your mind, a GR with all those skills would cost the same as before)