Fixing Attrition Mechanics

[mattgslater]

So we can stop hijacking Joe's thread, let's use this one to come up with a coherent platform for a patch to the current CRP that we think can fly with GW?

Problem

The identified problem is that the new rules to create AV-independent attrition have also had the effect of reducing the number of viable skills and strategies in the game, and making the game feel like less of a sport and more of a wargame. We want to reform the attrition mechanisms so they continue to accomplish their intended objective, but deliver less damage to midlevel and line players, where the damage falls most irregularly.

The situation: When the LRB5 ground-up ruleset revision was made, fouling was softened considerably, especially strategic fouling, with the nerf of DP, and tactical fouling made a bit riskier (in part because Sneaky Git failed). The Ageing and Traits rules and the TR penalty for high-level players were replaced with in-game mechanisms to encourage player turnover. At first, this was heralded as a great improvement: fouling had been sticky for a lot of people, Ageing felt artificial and buggy, and seemed to penalize success, while the TR penalty was unevenly applied: two identical players could have very different values, which could make a big difference in the new environment with inducements. Traits were controversial, but the particulars of removing them looked pretty good on paper.

So the ledger of LRB4:LRB5 changes that are salient here are:
OT1H: No Ageing, no cumulative TV for player improvements, no Traits, Wandering Apothecary, weak fouling.
OT2H: ClawPOMB, no Treasury to TV, nasty Cas table, weak Apo, penalty for bench, esp. with skills.

The net effect of all these changes has been, on one hand, to reward coaches for playing a lot of games with the same team and plow through the attrition, without rewarding the immediately successful too much more than the strugglers: sure, the winning teams look better than the losing ones after 10 games, but the fights are still fair. On the other hand, not all teams can play that way and still succeed. Orcs kind of have to build around their slow-developing guys who are all potential. No single player takes it worse in this environment than the BOB. Dwarfs get it rough too, which makes elf-types even better. So of the three main competitive groups, two work fine and one gets hammered. No coincidence that it used to be the one that was too good; that's an indicator that the problem is in the balancing mechanism.

Proposal

1) Soften the effect of ClawPOMB by making Claw work only if the Claw player is standing. The intent is to keep the power of the stack intact as a real thing, while putting a little more strategy into the numbers-only vs. position-for-numbers matchup. This is supposed to be a sports game, after all. The current CPOMB is a ludicrous 119/144 to break AV; that's just wrong, sorry. This would reduce it to a still-nasty 109/144 vs AV8 (as opposed to a rookie 5/18=60/144), and vs AV9 it would be 151/216, still a whopping 420% of the unskilled chance of 1/6=36/216, though many coaches would opt to forgo PO on a failed AV, and take just 126/216 (only 350%!) of rookie odds), trading just over 1/9 of a break to keep their zones. But if they break AV (again, better than even odds), PO is there for injury, and they're guaranteed not to leave an unmarked man if it fails. This would also hurt non-Block Claw players, but only when they got both-down results against/from non-Block AV8+ opponents. These situations do happen, but aren't exactly common occurrences.

2) Soften the Casualty table, and add a little ironic twist, by changing the d68 table to a d86 table. This would allow middling players to be kept around a bit longer, without changing the overall attrition mechanic. Badly Hurt would be 11-46, Seriously Injured 51-76, and Dead 81-86. Numbers in the 70s would be characteristic losses. Niggling Injuries would be in the 60s, in a balance with Miss Next Game results (maybe 51-63=MNG, 64-66=NI, making NI 50% more common, in exchange for twice as many deaths; this basically mirrors earlier LRBs, except for the new niggle, and the replacement of some niggles with statlosses).

Alternately, this leaves a natural place for "miss two game" results, which could lead to some interesting decisions. (51-56=MNG; 61-64=M2G, 65-66=NI? Then, two MNGs and two deaths become four M2Gs.) Heck, "miss two games" could be an "indefinite injury" where he goes MNG, and then after every match you roll 4+ or he goes MNG again, until he shows up and is fine thereafter. So it could be one game, or fifty (seldom more than three).

In any case, the goal would be to allow coaches to build their players through the low levels while still letting opponents focus on the best guys and reduce the number of players who make it to star status, as they will. Note that this rule wouldn't help on the pitch; in fact, the extra odds of niggling injury or the chance to miss two games might lead to some interesting decision-making that might remove more bodies in the future.

3) Improve fouling a little bit, to retain the overall level of attrition: allow a player to assist his own foul if not in an enemy Tackle Zone, and allow Sneaky Git players to ignore enemy Tackle Zones on Fouls made by him or his team. This way, all teams can get in a bit more on the player removal game.

Intended net effect
* Turn 25% of all deaths into bad-but-less bad results.
* Cut about 1/6 off the top of ClawPOMB and 1/12 off non-Block Claw.
* Make fouling better, especially if you can't get enough assists, like with man-down teams.
* Give Sneaky Git a chance to work. It would be a great side-benefit if it became a worthwhile spam skill for Goblins and Halflings, or if you'd actually consider making a Human Catcher your DP/SG target (seems very suboptimal as-is).

[DoubleSkulls]

a patch to the current CRP that we think can fly with GW

Mission impossible then...

[dode74]

The identified problem is that the new rules to create AV-independent attrition have also had the effect of reducing the number of viable skills and strategies in the game

We don't have the evidence to show this is the case yet, and I have received word from Cyanide that they can't give me it. It will need to come from FUMBBL. That said, I'm going to work with this as a hypothesis in the spirit of the thread.

Reworked from the other thread:

@ Matt
Your changes:
1 is a relative buff to AV 8 and 9 (and therefore a relative nerf to AV7). It removes the entire point of claw: an AV-neutral effect. If you can come up with some other AV-neutral on-pitch effect with a similar application rate then please do, otherwise I think you really need to look at plasmoid's option (because the maths works), but declaring its use before the AV/injury dice are rolled (which I think addresses your concern with it).
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that claw shouldn't work with PO used on the AV, or just on BD results where the claw player has not got block?

2 reduces player turnover among all players, not just developing ones. We need to maintain the overall player turnover rate. If you want to maintain the lower-SPP players rather than the higher ones then an alternative would be to add the number of gained skills to the d68 roll, with anything going over the 8 being the next level of injury. For example, a level 4 player (3 gained skills) rolls 37 on the injury table - he adds 3 to that and it becomes 42. That way "older" players have a greater chance of picking up debilitating/career-ending injuries while the young bucks play on. That's just an idea I thought of right now, so it may need refinement (maybe add 2 per gained skill?). It's actually a form of ageing (although not AV-neutral), so I don't know how popular that will be

3 is good. I also like +1 to the AV roll from fouling.

[mattgslater]

@Ian: I understand. That's still a standard I want to shoot for: something non-controversial, that can pick up currency elsewhere.

Your changes:
1 is a relative buff to AV 8 and 9 (and therefore a relative nerf to AV7). It removes the entire point of claw: an AV-neutral effect. If you can come up with some other AV-neutral on-pitch effect with a similar application rate then please do, otherwise I think you really need to look at plasmoid's option (because the maths works), but declaring its use before the AV/injury dice are rolled (which I think addresses your concern with it).

I've looked at Plasmoid's option. Look at mine again. It doesn't remove the point of Claw.

Watch: Block/ClawMB = unchanged. Claw/MB vs Block = Unchanged.
Claw/MB vs AV8-9, no Block: Claw loses 3/23 of its power, always on turnovers.

On a pow, the chance of breaking AV9.
Rookie: 1/6 = 16.7%
MB Only: 5/18 = 27.8%
PO Only: 11/36 = 30.6%
Claw Only: 5/12 = 41.7%
POMB: 155/324 = 47.8%
ClawMB: 7/12 = 58.3%
My CPOMB: 151/216 = 69.9%
Current CPOMB: 119/144 = 82.6%
So my POMB is a loss of 15.4% from current POMB, or 12.7% of all blocks, a 52.3% cut in the AV power of CPOMB. And it has no effect on injuries.

2 reduces player turnover among all players, not just developing ones. We need to maintain the overall player turnover rate. If you want to maintain the lower-SPP players rather than the higher ones then an alternative would be to add the number of gained skills to the d68 roll, with anything going over the 8 being the next level of injury. For example, a level 4 player (3 gained skills) rolls 37 on the injury table - he adds 3 to that and it becomes 42. That way "older" players have a greater chance of picking up debilitating/career-ending injuries while the young bucks play on. That's just an idea I thought of right now, so it may need refinement (maybe add 2 per gained skill?). It's actually a form of ageing (although not AV-neutral), so I don't know how popular that will be

Yeah, that's why I put in the idea of missing multiple games: injured stars, who are coming back eventually, would play havoc with your strategies. More perms for niggling injuries would do something similar, by encouraging coaches to play on with nigglers, who will eventually turn over... no telling when!
11-46: BH
51-56: MNG
61-63: MNG*: roll 4+ after next game or MNG again.
64-66: Niggle
71-72: -MA
73-74: -AV
75: -AG
76: -ST
81-86: Dead

[dode74]

So your cpomb will benefit AVs 8 & 9 but not 7? This is a relative nerf to AV 7 teams then.

[mattgslater]

So your cpomb will benefit AVs 8 & 9 but not 7? This is a relative nerf to AV 7 teams then.

Huh? Claw doesn't hurt AV7. It only hurts ClawPO, and occasionally Claw without Block.

Most of the problem isn't with AV7 teams. They all have mechanics to spare themselves.
* Amazons, Goblins, Halflings, Skinks, and Ghouls have Dodge.
* Pro and Wood Elves can all get Dodge, and play pretty well man-down. Ditto Slann, as far as their AV7 goes.
* Skaven have a combination of cheap players and Dodge players, and play pretty well without the cheap guys.
* Underworld are cheap and dodgy.
* Norse POMB back, and do it with the best of them, especially vs the CPOMB teams. They also all have Block.

The problem is that the big new damage mechanic is almost as mean to AV9 as AV7, meaning AV is an expensive nothing after a certain point in the development of a mature league. Since AV is about long-haul value, and it was designed that way, there are a lot of teams that rely on AV to get their players up to speed. Since that doesn't work anymore against certain (relatively common) opposition mixes, those teams struggle badly in some leagues but not in others.

The buff to fouling AV rolls and Sneaky Git should fall mostly on the low-AV teams. Fouls against low-AV teams seldom fail, and this will democratize fouling somewhat. Sneaky Git is an A skill unlikely to be taken on doubles except on a Dirty Player, so benefits Stunty players, who are more likely to take it given their low skill quality.

[dode74]

What I mean is that the relative attrition rates of AV 8 & 9 players will reduce while that of AV 7 players stays the same. That's a relative nerf no matter what amelioration they have, because they already have that amelioration.

[Tourach]

pion + MB against av7 is the problem (i.e. claw pomb against all opponents), ergo plasmoids version is the way to go imho.

[mattgslater]

What I mean is that the relative attrition rates of AV 8 & 9 players will reduce while that of AV 7 players stays the same. That's a relative nerf no matter what amelioration they have, because they already have that amelioration.

1) Read edit of my last post.

2) AV7 teams don't need any amelioration. They mostly play well man-down. FUMBBL doesn't show Skaven at their full glory, but in most leagues, with Fezglitch and Mercenaries and big TV differentials, they're deadly. Pro Elves kind of lose by comparison, but not much, and besides they're not a classic team. The other AV7 teams are doing just fine, thanks: Norse are kind of an odd-duck and really have to ride a TV curve, but they can win that way (massive underdog = no problem, with Norse Merc quality), and can be a beast to go up against. Wood Elves and Amazons are still cheesy as ever. What's the problem?

I think the relative power of inducements for low-AV teams over high-AV teams is easy to underestimate. Orcs + Wizard = nice gimmick. Skaven + Wizard = free 2TD swing. Skaven + Wizard, 2x Babe = free 2TD swing and all your KOs back. If you've got a lot of KOs with Orcs, then Wizarding will not avail.

Plasmoid's version will cut the impact of PO in damage terms, but will make it no less popular. I can't tell you if that's a bad thing, but it would sure help Orcs. In fact, I'd go from aiming for 2x PO to aiming for 9x PO, if I knew it would work before I used it. Making opponents use it first would cripple it to the point of unusability. Going prone for 1/6 of an AV break is a really, really bad idea except in garbage time. It's just that going prone for a whole break is a no-brainer, and going prone for 7/12 of a break independently of AV is a bit too good.

[dode74]

I read the edit. The point of the damage mechanic was to equalise AVs, just as ageing did. It takes quite the concentration of teams with the combo for it to make a big difference, and artificial MM limitations such as TV exacerbate that.

With plasmoid's version and my suggested change (declare and go prone before you make the roll it will affect) then I doubt you'd be so keen to use it. You said, "Going prone for 1/6 of an AV break is a really, really bad idea except in garbage time", but I disagree. It would make the use of it reliant on good positioning to cover the hole left by the player going prone, and I would certainly take it on a few players. The overall odds are still very good - only a 22% reduction.

[Corvidius]

So, another Claw, Piling On, Mighty Blow thread likely to be populated by folks already debating it to death elsewhere, great, awesome.

Saying that, not being able to use Claw on a both down result in the same way as you can't use piling on. Don't mind that at all, good suggestion. Miss 2 or more games, boo hiss, do not like. Larger injury table so as to massage the odds of particular injuries, fine in principal but the table specified, do not like.

Ok, 2 cents chipped in, now i'll leave everyone else to debate percentages and figures.

[mattgslater]

It's actually not a larger injury table. By reading the d8 first, with 1-4 = BH and 8 = death, you get 2 fewer deaths, replaced by some kind of SI. Are you saying you don't like replacing two deaths with a niggle and a MNG either?

[mattgslater]

Hey, here you go...

1) Piling On (Strength skill): A player with Piling On may, if he is adjacent to his prone defender during his own Block, Blitz, or Foul action, place himself prone before rolling the defender's AV. If he does, add +1 to any AV and/or Injury rolls the player makes in this action. This ends the player's action, but only causes a turnover if the Piling On player was carrying the ball. Do not roll AV against the player using this skill; he is placed prone, not knocked down.

2, 3: As above.

[Corvidius]

It's actually not a larger injury table. By reading the d8 first, with 1-4 = BH and 8 = death, you get 2 fewer deaths, replaced by some kind of SI. Are you saying you don't like replacing two deaths with a niggle and a MNG either?

Honestly? Mostly i just hate the missing multiple games aspect.

I think your d68 to d86 idea has a nice simplicity to it (other than the messy multimiss issue) but i'd like maybe a d88 table with even more chance of niggling injuries tbh.

[plasmoid]

Hi Matt,
I actually misunderstood your claw tweak originally. I though you could only use claw when you started your action standing - so, whenever you piled on, there'd be no claw next turn

I do like the d86 idea. Not sure if the impact is too big, but I like it all the same.

I also really like your and Dode's tweak to my piling on. Going prone for the mighty blow is not very appealing. Still,m stacking is stacking and stacking rules. And being able to use it on fouling also just might be that little extra something it needs for compensation. Nice. That just might go into the 2nd round playtest for NTBB.

Cheers
Martin