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 »

mattgslater wrote:Cheap Linemen need help? On that, we can differ. I think the ones who need help are mid-price AG2 Blockers, like Longbeards and BOBs. Teams that live on really cheap guys, or whose cheap guys are all-round players, can cope with the damage much more efficiently.
Perhaps I was unclear. It's cheap linemen who do the fouling, so making this an S access skill limits that for all those teams where the linemen don't have S access. Dwarves and Chaos would do fine, but I really can't see Orcs, for example, risking a highly skilled and (for them) mobile blitzer on a foul. For teams where the S access players are limited (humans, UD, necro, khemri) are unlikely to risk them on a foul when they can be so much more effective on the pitch. Part of the beauty of the foul is that a relatively cheap player can remove an expensive one. By making this part of an S skill you force the foulers to use expensive players to foul if they are to get any use from this part of the skill.
I'm not suggesting PO be made an S skill; I am suggesting that it having a fouling aspect is not, for me, desirable - it wouldn't be used. Personally I prefer my own +1 PO to your RR one anyway. I think it removes the exponential effect of allowing a RR.

Reason: ''
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 »

mattgslater wrote:Cheap Linemen need help? On that, we can differ. I think the ones who need help are mid-price AG2 Blockers, like Longbeards and BOBs. Teams that live on really cheap guys, or whose cheap guys are all-round players, can cope with the damage much more efficiently.
Perhaps I was unclear. It's cheap linemen who do the fouling, so making this an S access skill limits that for all those teams where the linemen don't have S access. Dwarves and Chaos would do fine, but I really can't see Orcs, for example, risking a highly skilled and (for them) mobile blitzer on a foul. For teams where the S access players are limited (humans, UD, necro, khemri) are unlikely to risk them on a foul when they can be so much more effective on the pitch. Part of the beauty of the foul is that a relatively cheap player can remove an expensive one. By making this part of an S skill you force the foulers to use expensive players to foul if they are to get any use from this part of the skill.
I'm not suggesting PO be made an S skill; I am suggesting that it having a fouling aspect is not, for me, desirable - it wouldn't be used. Personally I prefer my own +1 PO to your RR one anyway. I think it removes the exponential effect of allowing a RR.

Regarding your summary:
1) Piling On only applies to injury rolls. No thanks - see above
2) Piling On may be used on a Foul action. No thanks - see above
3) Sneaky Git prevents a player from getting caught fouling by rolling doubles on the Armour roll. If the Injury roll is a double, the player is still caught. Yes
4) Sneaky Git players may always assist their own or friendly players' fouls. Yes
5) A player can assist his own fouls. Yes
6) Foul assists are now optional, and are calculated after the die roll like other modifiers. (The reason to make the foul assist mandatory has been eliminated.) Yes

Reason: ''
User avatar
Coach Grievous
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:44 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by Coach Grievous »

mattgslater wrote: 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).
My own view about addressung the current bash-favoring climate is that this change is pretty much the key to the issue. ClawPOMB might need looking into I grant you, but I think the problem with it emerges in a problematic manner in conjunction with the harsh injury table. For a lot of players, 2/6 of the results on the d6 result in firing offenses (stat losses often equal death). Add to this the fact that the apothecary is much worse than in the past. ClawPOMB is only truly aggravating because it pushes players onto that nasty casualty table and its league-wide effects, not necessarily its game winning fury.

So yeah, I like that change. I would also go back to "only fail on 1 to fix injury" apothecaries while at it.

Secondarily, I would address the fouling nerfs. Your suggestions in regards to that seem workable.

Edit - let me give context to my opinions! I like developed teams with lots of skills in league environments. That's not a preference universally shared as some folks like the game-play of early teams better. hence, my concerns about too many players getting killed or forcefully kicked out of the roster (whereas the folks with the contrary preference would consider this going in the wrong direction).

Reason: ''
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 »

let me give context to my opinions! I like developed teams with lots of skills in league environments.
Part of the aim of CRP (and LRB 5 before it) was, apparently, to increase player attrition in order to allow for perpetual leagues without getting to what I would call silly TVs (and what you might call "developed teams"). Part of the reason for that is that once teams get sufficiently high in TV then not only does the game become a "who throws the most 1s" contest, but also because some teams can become unbalanced at sufficiently high TVs. It may be better, for you, if you were to house rule that one for your own league.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Coach Grievous
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:44 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Fixing Attrition Mechanics

Post by Coach Grievous »

dode74 wrote:
let me give context to my opinions! I like developed teams with lots of skills in league environments.
Part of the aim of CRP (and LRB 5 before it) was, apparently, to increase player attrition in order to allow for perpetual leagues without getting to what I would call silly TVs (and what you might call "developed teams"). Part of the reason for that is that once teams get sufficiently high in TV then not only does the game become a "who throws the most 1s" contest, but also because some teams can become unbalanced at sufficiently high TVs. It may be better, for you, if you were to house rule that one for your own league.
Yep, I was aware of the general direction.. and I'm not disavowing the entire thing or pushing for a total change (I did say I was just giving context to my opinions), I'm just saying that maybe the pendulum swung too far in regards to the topic of this thread.

I can't resist making a small comment about "who throws the most 1s"-contest, though. Development tends to give padding against this very thing.

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 »

Funny enough, I think the feeling that there's a need for attrition mechanics is really outdated: at this point, it's down to a reputation (phantoms of the old TR) and a self-fulfilling prophecy (killstack). Teams that live forever, were it not for killstacking, would run to the peaks of their development curve, and would have to start taking suboptimal skills. Opponents would just load up on inducements. Runaway TR was a problem in the old days, because handicap mechanics sucked, and TR was a very poor indicator of team power, given that it rewarded things like cycling Treasury and spreading SPP, and penalized players who were about to improve and fractional Treasury remnants. But nowadays, if you neutered the killstack, you'd cut the power of stacking normal skills to three good ones (not counting B-skills like Fend), except on Throwers (not a concern) and GAS players (Vampires and Slann Blitzers; again not a concern).

As far as cheap linemen, here's my thinking.

1) Cheap linemen are cheese in the current rules. We don't need to give them more development options on a normal roll; that lack of options is a critical balance element.
2) No, you wouldn't normally foul with your POMBer, not unless the foul was absolutely critical, like if Ramtut is within blitzing range of your carrier or something. (Or if you're Dwarfs, who may eventually build a POMBDP Blocker: that's okay, as buffing Dwarfs is a deliberate objective.) But you might take PO if you doubled on your DP lineman... after all, you can use it two ways!

It's silly to think you'll get rid of all exponential advantages. You can't quantify the relative power of Blodge/Guard/SS/Fend, but it's clearly not an arithmetic progression. Mine gets it pretty darn close to arithmetic progression (closer than +1 to either/both, I might add), by taking out the multiplicative power of use on the AV roll.

As far as RR injury only vs. +1, here's the difference.

Vs PO as is, this is less potent but more reliable (you never go prone without breaking AV). It's a clear nerf, but the skill has applications the generally-superior Mighty Blow doesn't share, usually as a doubles pick (that is, sometimes on doubles, sometimes after MB, much like today). I like my way better.
Vs +1 to AV or injury, picked after the roll, this is more potent but less reliable (you always know if +1 will work, but won't get as many chances to use it). My way isn't too potent, as has already been established. +1 after the roll is too reliable, as has also been established (assuming that, as I do, you accept the disavowal of the suggestion's author). I like my way better.
Vs +1 to AV and/or injury, picked before the roll, this is more potent and more reliable, because that way, frankly, is a killer nerf. (Not just a nerf; it becomes the new Sneaky Git/Pass Block/Prehensile Tail.) I know you may not see it, but this variant would be a very poor pick in my book; I should rather have RR stuns only with no application on fouls. I like my way better, if we're going to save POMB. If we're going to eliminate it, then we should change the rule for PO to "The player with this skill picks a new skill. It may be a doubles skill if the player does not have S access," and be done with it.

So yeah, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

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 »

Funny enough, I think the feeling that there's a need for attrition mechanics is really outdated: at this point, it's down to a reputation (phantoms of the old TR) and a self-fulfilling prophecy (killstack). Teams that live forever, were it not for killstacking, would run to the peaks of their development curve, and would have to start taking suboptimal skills. Opponents would just load up on inducements.
Inducements don't make up the difference, nor are they designed to. We're covering that point in another thread, so let's not get split.

As for peaking the development curve, some teams just get more efficient as you add skills.

Your PO is how many people use it now anyway - to RR a stunned result. You want to maintain that and add a fouling element - that doesn't carry out the aim of the thread (see title) imo.

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:Downside: This is a net gain for Skaven and Amazons; there is no way to sugarcoat it. That's not good, but it's not a catastrophe: where such teams proliferate, so does Tackle. It also hurts Norse, which is not optimal. But it's hardly crippling, even then.
My experience is that neither of these do exceptionally well at higher TVs anyway, and since the change predominantly affects high TV teams I can't see this as a major downside.

Its also worth bearing in mind that a reduction in CPOMB effectiveness may mean the teams that took the combo will probably end up with less Claw and more Tackle, Tentacles and Frenzy as a consequence, meaning better value spend on skills against AG teams.

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 »

dode74 wrote:Inducements don't make up the difference, nor are they designed to. We're covering that point in another thread, so let's not get split.
It's such a grab-bag, I couldn't tell you how big a factor inducements are. Skill-stack depth, inducement quality, and inducement vulnerability: those matter more. Keeping stacks short is a way of disguising a TV penalty for bigshots. (An alternative rule would just be to go to a cumulative-Rank(10k)-to-TV basis in lieu of 20k per skill, with +10k for doubles/MA/AV, +20k for AG, +30k for ST).
As for peaking the development curve, some teams just get more efficient as you add skills.
Definitely. That's part of the balance of the game. Don't rail against it; manage it.
Your PO is how many people use it now anyway - to RR a stunned result. You want to maintain that and add a fouling element - that doesn't carry out the aim of the thread (see title) imo.
Are you trying to kill PO? I'm not. If people just used PO to RR stunned results, CPOMB would be manageable. When do people PO AV failures?
a) When they're trying to POMB AV7, they're more likely than when POMBing AV9.
b) When they have Claw, they're more likely to POMB AV fails, especially when out-Guarded.
c) When they already have control of the game, or are building a numerical advantage, they can spare the TZ, and need to push their edge, so they're more likely to make risky POs. At the time this happens, the POMBer already has an advantage, so even if POMB ensures a win, it probably doesn't add a lot to win% over the alternative (just because the alternative is probably also a win).

So that's what my way stops. AV cuts are no longer factored into the power of POMB, weakening CPOMB and POMB vs AV7 (a stated objective) considerably. You'd be able to PO in a way that a lot of people already use it early on, meaning it's still a worthwhile skill, and guys who already have it can go into the new rules without feeling that they got reamed too hard. But now POMB wouldn't be useful to do the un-fun thing that coaches are incentivized to do but doesn't add a lot to win ratios.

The d86 table may have some merit, yeah. Or a buff to the Apothecary. I prefer the former, but my league will insist on an Apothecary buff over the d86 table, so my houserules will have a beefed Apo (I can live with this).

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 »

It's such a grab-bag, I couldn't tell you how big a factor inducements are. Skill-stack depth, inducement quality, and inducement vulnerability: those matter more. Keeping stacks short is a way of disguising a TV penalty for bigshots. (An alternative rule would just be to go to a cumulative-Rank(10k)-to-TV basis in lieu of 20k per skill, with +10k for doubles/MA/AV, +20k for AG, +30k for ST).
Break it down all you like. In general, though, inducements don't make up the difference.
Definitely. That's part of the balance of the game. Don't rail against it; manage it.
I'm not railing against it, I'm acknowledging it. Are you having issues understanding me?
Are you trying to kill PO?
Sigh. Slippery slope argument. Quite obviously I'm not trying to kill it as I actually think there is nothing wrong with it as it is (as stated in my first post on this thread). What I am saying is that your PO is what a lot of people do with it anyway, so there would be little difference. In fact, you're buffing it with the (imo) silly fouling addition.

I've offered my opinion on what PO should be if a nerf were needed. I think all we've agreed on really is that the target of any nerf needs to be PO in order to maintain the validity of the other skills and the point of claw as an AV-leveller. I'm content to end it there.

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 »

Sigh...

I think we agree on a lot. I don't want to let the animosity generated by your (probably unwitting) rhetorical tricks and my rather brusque response thereto getting us talking past each other.

The problem: It's too hard to maintain midlevel Blockers. Incidentally, and related, POMB is a little too good vs AV7. It doesn't cripple low-AV teams, but it does really fall hard (pun intended) on Ghouls, and it shoehorns low-AV teams into a limited-but-effective number of builds.

The root of the problem: The combination of the buffed Cas table, ClawPOMB, and the nerfed Apothecary, intended to replace Ageing and good fouling, fell differently than the mechanics they replaced.

The solutions: Nerf ClawPOMB somewhat by nerfing POMB vs AV7 while keeping POMB viable. Improve fouling somewhat. Make the Cas table a bit more palatable with a minimum of added complexity.

We agree on the second one. The third one, we'll get back to. The first one, we seem to agree only in principle, not in particular.

Take a look at my math again, on the last page, and tell me how my PO doesn't do exactly what you claim to want.

1) My PO is not nearly as good with MB vs AV7, whether the AV7 is due to Claw or just low AV. It's still pretty good, just not as good. This is because squaring your failure odds gets better and better as your chance of success gets higher and higher, until you reach the point of diminishing returns around AV5 or 6.

2) My PO is almost as good vs AV9 without Claw, where you probably wouldn't reroll the injury roll anyway.

You can't say, "often people only go prone on injury, so losing the ability to go prone on AV doesn't hurt." the incentive is AV-driven.
on the last page, I wrote:Vs AV7, or with Claw
Rookie: 27,216 fails, 11,340 stuns, 4,860 KOs, 3,240 Cas
MB only: 19,440 fails, 12,636 stuns, 7,884 KOs, 6,696 Cas
PO only: 27, 216 fails, 6,615 stuns, 7,695 KOs, 5,130 Cas (11,340 PO uses)
POMB: 19,440 fails, 6,021 stuns, 11,493 KOs, 9,702 Cas (8,100 PO uses)

Vs AV9
Rookie: 38,800 fails, 4,536 stuns, 1,944 KOs, 1,296 Cas
MB only: 33,696 fails, 6,264 stuns, 3,672 KOs, 3,024 Cas
PO only: 38,800 fails, 2,646 stuns, 3,078 KOs, 2,052 Cas (4,536 PO uses)
POMB: 33,696 fails, 3,114 stuns, 5,418 KOs, 4,428 Cas (6,264 PO uses)
POMB vs stuns or fails, AV7 or with Claw. 25/144 to PO AV and fail, or about the same odds as a 2+ roll.
Fails: 11,640
Stuns: 8,286
KOs: 14,454
Cas: 12,276 (that's twice the difference from MB vs PO stuns alone)

POMB vs stuns or fails, AV9 or with Claw. 155/324 (47.8%) to PO AV and fail, about the same odds as a 4+ roll.
Fails: 24,336
Stuns: 8,478
KOs: 7,854
Cas: 6,972 (again twice the difference from stun only vs MB only, but a smaller absolute difference than with AV7, with 3x as many PO fails on AV rolls)

So my PO would hurt POMBers on blocks vs low AV much more than vs high AV. How is this exactly not what we're talking about?

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 »

Look, the math is not where I have the main issue - as I said at the top of this page, I merely prefer my own version. The reason I prefer it is that it adds the tactical risk of going prone on a failed AV roll, thereby handing the initiative to the opponent who can get up and walk away (or foul you) next turn; your own version does not have that risk as you are only rerolling injury. The math for both is about the same; the tactical use is not.

My main gripe is adding the fouling thing. I think that's a step too far, personally, and would prefer to see the already-discussed changes to fouling (self-assist, SG assists).

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 »

I'm with you on those other fouling changes. I'm not married to the idea of PO on fouls, but I think it would be a good way to incentivize PO over MB on doubles rolls for cheap linos: that way, it combos with DP. I don't think it would have much impact on POMBers; you don't usually want to foul with those guys.

Hmmm.... how about PO working as-is (go prone to RR AV/injury if adjacent to defender after knocking down), but have the player ejected if the RR is a double? So every time you PO, there's a 1/6 chance that the Ref sends you off for "unnecessary roughness"?

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 »

If you incentivize PO over MB on doubles then you also incentivize it on singles. The extra flexibility (foul or block) is pretty huge imo.

That sending off idea been suggested before, I think. It might work, although I'm not sure about Blood Bowl having "unnecessary roughness" :lol:

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 »

dode74 wrote:If you incentivize PO over MB on doubles then you also incentivize it on singles.
Why is this true? Was not the old Diving Tackle (the out-of-turn block, remember that?) completely useless on ST2 Catchers but spectacularly awesome on BOBs?

Ditto this. You wouldn't take PO on a S-access player just to foul with him, unless you're Dwarfs or Pact. You wouldn't foul with a POMBer, or take DP on a POMBer: the skill stack is too deep, and most POMBers are rank 3+, except maybe on Norse (who could use a little buff). Especially if PO fouls are more likely to yield ejections (+37.9% over no PO on an autobreak).

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.
Post Reply