Passing - a change

Got a great idea and/or proposal for BloodBowl?

Moderator: TFF Mods

dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Passing - a change

Post by dode74 »

Oh ok, well at least that proves that you're simply being petulant now. It's a shame because you come across as an intelligent person; it seems that people challenging your opinion is a bit tough for you to take though. No matter. It does rather put into contention this claim though: viewtopic.php?p=623196#p623196
I am all in all a very friendly, laid back and relaxed guy,
You didn't bring up the win%. I did.
Indeed. And I agree with you that the won% is fine and it does not need adjusting. Seems we can put the win% point to bed now that we agree on it, no? ;)
The win% is fine, there is no need for a change.
The first does not necessarily mean the second is the case. See the "lack of skill variation" on the other thread for a case in point.
There is no need for a change.
There may not be. I did mention that in the OP when I said that agreeing what we want it to be would be the tough part. What I would like, though, is some indication of relative passing frequencies from LRB 4 so that a comparison can be made.
You might find it more fun, I don't.
Ok. Noted. I'm certainly not averse to contrary opinions in this thread. What I would like to know, though, so that I might better adjust things to please you, is why you don't find it more fun to have more passing options available in the game?
And the win% is fine.
Indeed it is. Which is why I am neither stating that the win% causes the need for a change, or that the win% needs to change. As I said, we agree on it.

Reason: ''
Ghost
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:02 am

Re: Passing - a change

Post by Ghost »

One more time; I am the one bringing up win% here. As you do when the subject is bashstacking. So, just to be sure I understand you;

The win% matter when the topic is about certain skills?

The win% does not matter, when it is about other skills?

The burden to prove things need to change is on you. The win%s are fine, they were the design goal. No need for a change, case closed.
- Or... is there something more to it, that can merit a change? If so, continue on dicussing and I will leave out the win%, and you will do the same when bashstacking is mentioned.

You think the game would be more fun with these ruleschanges on passing. I don't.
I think the game would be more fun, if bashtacking was adressed. You don't.

We are on equal footing here. And if you promise to not spam "prove there is a need for change" on the other subject, I will promise to not do the same here. I am using your own argument, so you should not complain about it. You want more passing. I want more variation.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Passing - a change

Post by dode74 »

The win% matters when the subject matter will change the win%, or when win% is brought up as justification for the change. Neither is the case in this thread, whereas both are the case regarding cpomb.

Indeed the burden is on me in this thread - hence all the stats and the wall of text. Many here agree with my conclusions from that, while you appear (on the face of it) not to. I asked why.
Or... is there something more to it, that can merit a change?
Exactly that. If you had read the OP you would know exactly what that is.
You think the game would be more fun with these ruleschanges on passing. I don't.
I think the game would be more fun, if bashtacking was adressed. You don't.
You've not said why you don't. I have said why I don't. Therein lies the difference. As you will see below, you are misrepresenting me by saying that I don't want bashstacking addressed - I just don't want it addressed on the basis of some incorrect argument about "domination".
We are on equal footing here. And if you promise to not spam "prove there is a need for change" on the other subject, I will promise to not do the same here. I am using your own argument, so you should not complain about it. You want more passing. I want more variation.
This is where you show that you completely misunderstand me on the other thread. I am not saying there is no need for change. I am saying that there is no need for change on the basis of win%. People have argued that there is a basis for change because of mutationbash dominating, and I am asking to show that is the case as I have stats which show otherwise. However, and I am saying this yet again, there may be a need for change on the basis of the thing you want - variation - and I am open to the argument that cpomb has reduced skill variation. That is a perfectly valid argument for which we are yet to gather data and, when we do, if it is shown that variation in skill selection has reduced markedly due to cpomb then there may be a need for a change.
In short, stop saying that cpomb causes mutationbash to dominate and argue from the perspective that it may cause a reduction in variation of skills and we can move forward.

Back on topic, and working from the assumption that you saying that you don't think an increase in variation between running and passing among the teams is fun, I would like to know why not. You want variation in skill types taken, which suggests they would be used for other playstyles than the run/bash game, so I see a bit of a contradiction in your perspective.

Reason: ''
Ghost
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:02 am

Re: Passing - a change

Post by Ghost »

Alright, here is my constructive opinion. I think, that good and competive coaches will always make as few rolls as possible to win. That is apart from blocking (welcome to the bashstacking threads ;) ). If the game goes according to plan (and it often does for good coaches), the only time they do rolls involving the ball, is when picking it up (another reason why I subjectively think bashers are so preferred, as they are built for only needing the pick up. They have no AG and skills wasted on TV they don't need). Maybe there will be a handoff here and there, but your suggestion doesn't really do anything in that regards. I am quite sure, that good players would play the same, and not pass or handoff more than they need to at all. Sure there are times where passes are being made, but that is often after the game is decided - or when desperate. I see your tweaks as helping in desperate plays, and not much else.

But what about making Hybrids pass more, then? I see that benifit to be overshadowed by having to tinker with a core mechanic in the game, that I in all honesty finds to be fine. Passing is not happening a lot, but not because passing is difficult (you can build players that long bomb on 2+, rerollable without too much hassle), but because it is oftentimes an uneeded roll, a risk, and clockmanagement is what matters. I think your suggestion makes a mess out of the rosters as they are now. Why have a thrower being skaven for instance? (not that there is much need for one now).

But all in all. Passing is happening to little because good players control the clock. That would still happen with your suggestion, I think (diving catch is not being picked much more after the LRB ruleschange either, for the same reason). I don't think you would change the things you want to change.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Passing - a change

Post by dode74 »

I agree with most of your points regarding minimising rolls etc. People don't pass unless they have to. The main reason for that is the risk of it though. The aim of minimising rolls is to minimise TO risk, and this is where passing is highly unattractive. It's true that it is easy enough to build very good passers, but the risk is not with the pass, it is with the catch. That is the risk I am trying to reduce. The fumble, interception and missed pass risks stay the same, but by enabling the RR transfer on a pass you reduce the risk on a pass to an unskilled player.

Skaven would benefit as they have the AG3 passer with pass. The GRs wouldn't be able to pass as effectively has him, meaning that he might actually have a job which, as you rightly say, he doesn't now.

I also agree that stalling would still happen. What would also happen though is that the teams which benefit most from this (norse, humans, zons, and later UD and necro) will be able to score a 2TTD more easily, or will be able to elf-stall (i.e. hold back and pass when a receiver gets free) more effectively.

Either way, I appreciate your constructive comments. I'd like to hear a few other thoughts on both whether a change is needed (based on the data in the OP) and what the thoughts are on the changes mooted by me and others.

Reason: ''
Ghost
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:02 am

Re: Passing - a change

Post by Ghost »

Passing or catching. Same thing. They are dependent on each other. My point is; when passing you make two rolls (a pass, a catch), two rolls that involve a risk, a risk that is better avoided. Why risk it, when you can run it in? Im my experience, good players don't play with open deep receivers. Then don't throw into enemy territory (unless desperate, and there is no choice). They don't throw at all. They run it in, behind a screen. I honestly don't see why your suggestion should make anyone take a risk, that is not needed - even if it is less of a risk. As said, I see it as making desperate plays more likely, not much else. But let me sleep on this one, I have a feeling that I will be able to give you some more constructive criticism tomorrow.

I like ideas that tries to improve the game and make it more varied, so in its core I should like this one. I will see what I can come up with.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Passing - a change

Post by dode74 »

Passing or catching. Same thing. They are dependent on each other.
Exactly! So how come a highly skilled passer has not got the ability to better enable a catcher who is unskilled make his catch?
Why risk it, when you can run it in?
Because sometimes you can't (opponent has managed to stall until T7, for example). Even the threat of a real passing game will make the opponent play differently and respect that threat, which may itself make the running game easier.

I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow :)

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Passing - a change

Post by Darkson »

On the Fumble thing, I always meant to try the following:

Accurate: as now
Inaccurate: as now
Modified fumble: becomes Wildly Inaccurate - ball scatters 6 times from target square, and the Catch skill cannot be used when catching the ball.
Natural 1: fumble as normal.

We had a slightly more complicated version, where TZ modified towards a fumble, whereas pass ranges modified to Wildly Inaccurate, but I'm just giving the basic version here.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
the.tok
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Passing - a change

Post by the.tok »

Darkson wrote:On the Fumble thing, I always meant to try the following:

Accurate: as now
Inaccurate: as now
Modified fumble: becomes Wildly Inaccurate - ball scatters 6 times from target square, and the Catch skill cannot be used when catching the ball.
Natural 1: fumble as normal.

We had a slightly more complicated version, where TZ modified towards a fumble, whereas pass ranges modified to Wildly Inaccurate, but I'm just giving the basic version here.
I like this "widly innacurate" concept. Could lead to some crazy situations :D

Reason: ''
User avatar
DoubleSkulls
Da Admin
Posts: 8219
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 12:55 pm
Location: Back in the UK
Contact:

Re: Passing - a change

Post by DoubleSkulls »

This isn't a serious proposal... just random musings. I suspect the real answer is making a running game less reliable for scoring, so passing is a relatively more successful technique.

So how to make running worse? For me the answer is to make it harder to protect the ball carrier. Having just come back from playing Ogres at the World Cup I think it might be interesting if, like stunty, dodges were not effected by TZ. That would mean it was much easier for teams to penetrate defensive lines (for the ball to be passed over the top) and to reach "caged" ball carriers.

Obviously such a fundamental change would require substantial rebalancing of the teams. Teams already with good AG and dodge would be very hard to stop - so ironically we may actually need to make passing a bit harder (perhaps just making it harder for those without passing skills). Ball Carriers may need to be toughened up a bit to survive the higher number of blitzes. Blodge Sure Hands would become essential for all of them - but I can see Guard being vital for protecting the ball carrier too. There would be some skill tweaks, e.g. making a new skill so players did apply negative modifiers for dodging into their TZ, also perhaps finally splitting dodge into the reroll skill and the defensive blocking skill.

Reason: ''
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
User avatar
the.tok
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Passing - a change

Post by the.tok »

DoubleSkulls wrote:This isn't a serious proposal... just random musings. I suspect the real answer is making a running game less reliable for scoring, so passing is a relatively more successful technique.

So how to make running worse? For me the answer is to make it harder to protect the ball carrier. Having just come back from playing Ogres at the World Cup I think it might be interesting if, like titchy, dodges were not effected by TZ. That would mean it was much easier for teams to penetrate defensive lines (for the ball to be passed over the top) and to reach "caged" ball carriers.

Obviously such a fundamental change would require substantial rebalancing of the teams. Teams already with good AG and dodge would be very hard to stop - so ironically we may actually need to make passing a bit harder (perhaps just making it harder for those without passing skills). Ball Carriers may need to be toughened up a bit to survive the higher number of blitzes. Blodge Sure Hands would become essential for all of them - but I can see Guard being vital for protecting the ball carrier too. There would be some skill tweaks, e.g. making a new skill so players did apply negative modifiers for dodging into their TZ, also perhaps finally splitting dodge into the reroll skill and the defensive blocking skill.
That would indeed be a massive overhaul :o
On a sidenote, goblins would really be pointless then ;)

Reason: ''
User avatar
DoubleSkulls
Da Admin
Posts: 8219
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 12:55 pm
Location: Back in the UK
Contact:

Re: Passing - a change

Post by DoubleSkulls »

You are quite right... all the dodge affecting skills would need an overhaul.

Reason: ''
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: Passing - a change

Post by garion »

That would indeed be a huge change. I think your intention is correct though, I said the same a few pages back.... that the problem is - caging, stalling and that not passing at all is the best way to play and the reason for passing not being truely viable as a game plan in most cases.

Rather than making caging more difficult would a simpler way of approaching this not be to make hand offs more difficult maybe?

Possibly remove the Re-roll catch gives you for handing off. I'm not sure? But do you think this would make people take passsing and catching skills more?

Reason: ''
User avatar
the.tok
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Passing - a change

Post by the.tok »

garion wrote: Possibly remove the Re-roll catch gives you for handing off. I'm not sure? But do you think this would make people take passsing and catching skills more?
Not sure that would be moving in the right direction...
It would make catch even less appealing

Reason: ''
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: Passing - a change

Post by garion »

true

Reason: ''
Post Reply