Fixing Attrition Mechanics

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: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by dode74 »

This isn't stat dependant though. It's extra functionality regardless of who has the skill. Furthermore, it can allow a team which is already handily winning the bash war to "double up" on not-in-contact damage using just one skill. For example, an Orc team (or any bash team) is wiping the pitch with team B (doesn't matter who). Team B decides to play the no-contact game, not following up and generally preventing more blocks from happening than necessary. The bash team is now able to hit with one PO player and then foul with another with greater effect than they currently have. You'd be increasing the universal usefulness of PO by creating more situations in which it can be used, thereby making it a more efficient skill pick.

Reason: ''
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by mattgslater »

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Hey, something occurred to me. MVP distribution rules might nip this problem in the bud. After all, the problem is the inordinate time it takes to skill blocker positions. More controlled MVP distribution has long been tested in house rules, and doesn't seem to have created any problems. Being able to assure any new BOB some SPP within a few games would go a long, long way toward helping bash teams recover from smashings at a uniform rate, and still a slower rate than the speed teams.

In fact, an MVP distribution mechanic, even as simple as a re-roll, might bypass a lot of other mechanics. A buff to Sneaky Git is a necessity, just because the skill sucks so bad and fouling is so badly underpowered. Ditto the native +1 on fouling. In fact, I think we'll try to roll with just that and see how we do.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by dode74 »

Adjusting MVP distribution might be a good method, yes. Completely random does make it hard to develop your team, but what I wouldn't want to do is enable a mechanic which allows teams to keep individuals at their most efficient levels indefinitely (i.e. too much choice which might further enable minmaxing), or to remove journeymen/dead players from the MVP draw. The simple reroll idea might work, but I'll try to think of a mechanic which allows lower skilled players to gain SPP ahead of higher skilled players (similar to my level-adjusted cas table), but at a small penalty - something like this, perhaps:
"One randomly selected player from each team who was eligible to play during this match, even if he is now dead, is awarded a Most Valuable Player award at the end of the match. A Most Valuable Player award earns the player 5 Star Player points.
Alternatively, you may choose to not include the d6 (d8? 2d6?) highest SPP rostered players in the MVP draw, with the eventual MVP in this case receiving 4SPP; in the event that the d6 (d8? 2d6?) roll is higher than the number of players who played the match then you may select the player to receive 4SPP; in the event that several players are tied for SPP and only one of them could be removed from the draw (e.g. you roll a 4 and two of them are the 4th/5th highest SPP players) then both are entered.
Mercenaries and Star Players ARE eligible to receive the MVP, and if they receive it, it is lost to the team. IMPORTANT: A team that concedes a match must give its MVP to the opposing team (i.e., the winning coach gets two MVPs and the losing coach gets none)."
I think d6 works best in this case - it allows a bit more targeting of the MVP without too much. Not so sure about the reduction to 4SPP though - in TV-underdog cases making the d6 roll to remove your own rostered players from the draw will increase the odds of losing the MVP altogether, and this may be enough of a penalty without the reduction: it might be best to just stay at 5SPP. This method should also encourage taking rostered players instead of journeymen where possible, but I am ambivalent as to whether that is a beneficial, neutral, or negative effect - importantly, it should make little difference to those teams which already play well with JM.

As an aside, it's worth noting that we're no longer talking about fixing attrition, but about enabling recovery from the effects of it.

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

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by DoubleSkulls »

mattgslater wrote:Hey, something occurred to me. MVP distribution rules might nip this problem in the bud. After all, the problem is the inordinate time it takes to skill blocker positions. More controlled MVP distribution has long been tested in house rules, and doesn't seem to have created any problems. Being able to assure any new BOB some SPP within a few games would go a long, long way toward helping bash teams recover from smashings at a uniform rate, and still a slower rate than the speed teams.
Well its in the rulebook as an option and although I was quite wary at first at it providing too big a benefit to bash teams early on (e.g. Lizardmen, Dwarves, Orcs) I actually think it doesn't make much difference, and later on it just helps everyone recover quicker.

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

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by dode74 »

Fair point. I guess the recovery rate is the question - 4 games at worst (assuming selected MVPs) to get a new BOB to block/guard seems pretty fast, so I think a random element is desirable.

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

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by the.tok »

How about allowing to exchange MVP for "most valuable rookie", excluding any skilled player from the pool? (or the lowest level on your team maybe?)

Would help recovering since you'll have fairly few rookies on a developped team, and would prevent from building superstars using that

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

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by DoubleSkulls »

dode74 wrote:Fair point. I guess the recovery rate is the question - 4 games at worst (assuming selected MVPs) to get a new BOB to block/guard seems pretty fast, so I think a random element is desirable.
Thing is the same applies for everyone. Elves can use their "easy completion SPPs" to minimise the use of MVPs to get skills, where the slower teams rely on more opportunistic exploitation of casualties or TDs. So if a War Dancer gets killed you can probably get one skill from the first game (the BOB would probably need 2) and perhaps only need 2 MVPs to get to the 2nd skill by the 3rd game.

Reason: ''
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by mattgslater »

Yeah, skills mean different things to different players. I still think it would buff some teams more than others, and in particular it would help teams with AG2 Blockers. But everyone can join in the cheese.

I was thinking something like this: You nominate three players. You opponent nominates three of your players. You "veto" any selection(s) your opponent made that you don't like. Your opponent nominates new players to replace your vetoed players: you can't veto these. Line the six selections up from left to right, roll 1d6.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by dode74 »

I think there are a million ways of doing this, all of which could be an improvement (both in terms of gameplay and fluff) on the current mechanic. Simplicity is important though, imo.

Reason: ''
Post Reply