Fixing Attrition Mechanics
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:39 pm
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).
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).