Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM etc

Got a great idea and/or proposal for BloodBowl?

Moderator: TFF Mods

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by Darkson »

Because (imo obviously) there are only a few skills where the might be an issue (Block, Dodge, Guard, Claw for example), which are outweighed by skills in those same skill trees that aren't "worth" it (Catch, Pass Block, Foul App, Sure Feet). All you idea will do is reinforce the "better" skills being taken. Great, so my DE Blitzer has "spent" an extra 10TV on unlocking Dodge as a second skill - still doesn't mean I'm anymore likely to take Catch (as an example) on him.

I'd rather just see the better/worse skills upped/lowered in price.

The Ag4 issue is that (again, imo) it's the AG4 that allows Elf teams to thrive at higher TV, not the skill access.
You disagree, so there's no point arguing about that one.

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

Then the two concepts are addressing different issues. There is no reason why they couldn't work together.

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by Darkson »

They could, but fixing the skills costs makes you fix redundant (imo), and is a lot simpler to use.

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
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by VoodooMike »

dode74 wrote:Player development and skill access is, imo, one of the sources of imbalance in the game as TV changes.
I also suspect this is the case - starting skills and stats determine initial performance, but skill access is what determine's the change in performance across all TV. Really, it's not much of a reach considering TV increase only comes with gaining new skills (and the occasional stat increase).
dode74 wrote:Changing skill costs doesn't alter the fact that teams with multiple normal skill access on all/most players have it easier when developing, both in terms of ability to take other skills not being down to luck and the cost of taking them (which is the issue I am addressing)
Variable skill costs in terms of TV is actually going to be a better route to go as far as making TV a more "accurate" (a bit of a vague word, but in this case, meaning that across the board rosters will be more equal in performance at the same TV). I believe what you're seeing and basing your idea on is something of a third variable effect.

The various skill categories are not created equal - having access to, say, Mutations is much more likely to benefit your team in the long run, than access to Passing skills. Why? Because Mutations have skills that cover all aspects of the game, while Passing skills... well... primarily relate to ball handling.. and has the fewest selections of any of the categories. The skills themselves are not created equal, either, with some having an almost constant benefit (Block, Dodge, etc) and some being very situational, yet all costing the same in terms of TV.

If the cost of skills better reflected their utility, rather than having a flat cost, then the meaning of TV would change. It would more accurately reflect the strength of a team, and thus, give a better idea of relative strengths in order to determine how much inducement money is needed, and so on. What you're proposing will just make the same problems you're already saying exist, happen a little bit later... and it'll make life harder on developed agility teams when they need to replace players and try to bring them up to speed.

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

They could, but fixing the skills costs makes you fix redundant (imo)
How? Adjusting skill costs does not address the fact that a GA or GS(M) access player has easier and cheaper development opportunities than a G player.
skill access is what determine's the change in performance across all TV. Really, it's not much of a reach considering TV increase only comes with gaining new skills (and the occasional stat increase).
Absolutely, which is why I think Darkson is barking up the wrong tree with AG4 being the issue: AG4 is there on elven teams from the start, but they don't seem to cause issues at low TV.

I'm not doubting that skill costs themselves could be adjusted to more accurately reflect their usefulness on the pitch. That is a separate matter to the fact that a player which has normal access to a skill not only has more access to the more useful skills (whether they cost more or not), but it also will cost them less to get combos which players with more limited skill access have to pay more for. That alone means that some players have it far easier than others when developing. Combining the two is not an issue.
For example, if we assume that Block and Dodge cost 30TV, and the effect of taking a Doubles skill is to add 10TV to the cost of the skill, taking my hypothetical 6338GA and 6338G players, the 6338GA player would get Blodge for either 70TV (30+30+10 for a double) or 80TV (30+30+20 for unlock), while the G player would get Blodge for 70TV assuming he rolled doubles at all. If that's unacceptable then the costs for access for the GA player could be adjusted such that doubles gives a free unlock while singles allows an unlock for 10k, meaning Blodge would cost wither 60 or 70TV - either less than or the same as for the G player.
After all, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the skills' costs more equivalent to their on-pitch value, then why would you want to insert a further imbalance by making them cheaper as well as more easily accessed for one player than for another?

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by Darkson »

What skill, other than Dodge, is causing a problem in high TV elves?

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

I don't think you are getting the concept. You're fixating on the symptom, imo. It's not dodge, it's the easy and cheap ability to combine skills such as block, dodge, SS and tackle, all of which are very good skills, both easily and more cheaply than those without GA access.

As I said, if you don't think there's a problem then you won't see a need for a solution ;)

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by VoodooMike »

dode74 wrote:How? Adjusting skill costs does not address the fact that a GA or GS(M) access player has easier and cheaper development opportunities than a G player.
If you remove the higher TV cost of doubles skills, the "cheaper" part stops being an issue... more opportunities perhaps, but again, by changing individual skill costs you're going to end up TV being a better reflection of team performance (removing the double's TV penalty on skills helps with that too) and that will help balance out performance differences at every TV, as high performing teams will have a higher TV, low-performing teams will have a lower TV, and that means more inducements provided to the underdog when it is warranted. More wins means more SPP, typically, and that increases the rate of development... less wins, less SPP, slows the rate of development.

It won't be even development across all teams, but your proposed change wouldn't either, it'd just make all new players develop more slowly... though some more than others.
dode74 wrote:Absolutely, which is why I think Darkson is barking up the wrong tree with AG4 being the issue: AG4 is there on elven teams from the start, but they don't seem to cause issues at low TV.
Oh, sorry... I don't even bother to read what Darkson says most of the time. He tends to just throw in random snarkiness and gut feelings. I don't think AG4 and Dodge are the sum total of varied team development either, if it helps. It's nothing against him, just that what he's concerned with, and what I'm concerned with, are never the same thing, so...
dode74 wrote:I'm not doubting that skill costs themselves could be adjusted to more accurately reflect their usefulness on the pitch. That is a separate matter to the fact that a player which has normal access to a skill not only has more access to the more useful skills (whether they cost more or not), but it also will cost them less to get combos which players with more limited skill access have to pay more for. That alone means that some players have it far easier than others when developing. Combining the two is not an issue.
I don't think they are separate issues, actually. I think skill cost adjustment's change in TV meaning would lead to a smoothing of the win%-TV graphs... not perfectly, of course, but better. The only thing what you're proposing would do is make early team development slower for everybody... which is fine if the entire intention is to apply to very short-term leagues that make new teams each season... but really, in that case why not just adjust all the skill access downward anyway, since such environments are unlikely to ever get PAST those low player levels. In terms of later play, you'd make it hard for teams to replace lost players, which would be a penalization to teams most likely to lose players later on which, as it happens, tend to be teams whose players have the highest initial price tag.

So... I'm in the same boat as some of the others... I think the TV cost of skills should be changed to reflect the general utility of the skill... and that doing so would remove the need for what you're proposing. I also think what you're proposing would only benefit early team play... it'd make life harder on later teams, especially agility teams most likely to have to replace their players.
dode74 wrote:After all, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the skills' costs more equivalent to their on-pitch value, then why would you want to insert a further imbalance by making them cheaper as well as more easily accessed for one player than for another?
Right, I don't think making skills cost more from the doubles category serves any real purpose other than to make TV less accurate in the long run. A skill is no more useful to a team that gets it on a double than it is to a team that gets it as a normal, in the long run. The access is already gated with the doubles requirement, and that's plenty.

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

If you remove the higher TV cost of doubles skills, the "cheaper" part stops being an issue...
This is a good point, and one which completely removes the issue. The only reason to reject it is fluff, really. Personally I'm a big fan of gameplay over fluff, so I would prefer this, but my suggestion is a compromise position.
that will help balance out performance differences at every TV, as high performing teams will have a higher TV, low-performing teams will have a lower TV, and that means more inducements provided to the underdog when it is warranted. More wins means more SPP, typically, and that increases the rate of development... less wins, less SPP, slows the rate of development.
Yes, changing skill costs to better reflect the on-pitch capability is going to have better combos cost more and therefore give up more inducements, ultimately adjusting the TV-difference to win% chart (as I note you say further in your post) such that the lower TV team is at less of a disadvantage. No issues with that.
It won't be even development across all teams, but your proposed change wouldn't either, it'd just make all new players develop more slowly... though some more than others.
I'm not aiming at even development across all teams, just at curbing those teams which perform well at higher TVs, i.e. evening out higher TV play a little.
Why would new players develop more slowly?
I think the TV cost of skills should be changed to reflect the general utility of the skill... and that doing so would remove the need for what you're proposing.
I agree in principle with the first part of that statement, but given that we are working with, at best, 5TV differences (and more likely 10TV differences) it really limits us as to how much effect this can have. With sufficient data a statistical case can be made for relative effectivenesses, and therefore costs, of skills, but there are always going to be a few skills which sit somewhere in between categories. That system can only smooth out so much. Even then it will be inaccurate on a per-match basis due to so many skills being counter-skill in nature. The typical example is that of Tackle having no on-pitch value against a team with no Dodge. Unless the intent is to recalculate on a per-match basis (possible online, much more complex on TT) then the inaccuracy remains.
I disagree with the second part of the statement unless the extra cost of doubles is removed or otherwise accounted for as I said above.
Right, I don't think making skills cost more from the doubles category serves any real purpose other than to make TV less accurate in the long run. A skill is no more useful to a team that gets it on a double than it is to a team that gets it as a normal, in the long run. The access is already gated with the doubles requirement, and that's plenty.
Agreed.

Reason: ''
EastCoast
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:22 am

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by EastCoast »

So this is kind of an interesting idea, Dode. But couldn't you get almost entirely the same effect by simply coming in and saying level 4 is the max level (ie. players only get 3 level ups)? If you're limiting the levels, then you're limiting the synergy on skills that everyone takes as a rule.

Why bother with a system that punishes people for taking smart skill selection, when they're not likely to change their minds anyway. Let's face it, the inducements (by design depending on who you ask) don't have the same relative value as the TV they are supposed to make up for, hence there's still no reason to make economical skill choices, especially for teams that dish out disproportionately more damage than they take in (the ones that you are targeting, basically).

If you get on 3 level ups, then the argument for stat increases/doubles rolls vs. high utility skills becomes a legitimately difficult decision. It also gives a boost to teams with a somewhat crummy skill access pool, but that get loads of starting skills, ie. Humans. Doesn't that do the exact same thing with a whole lot less record keeping?

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

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

You could, but people like building their teams. I believe there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when players went from 7 to 6 earned skill: limiting to 4 would likely be rejected outright.

There's also the fact you alluded to whereby people will likely take high utility skills, so the low utility ones won't get a look in. It's rare enough to see some skills on players at all due to there perceived relative lack of value, and limiting players to just 4 skills will likely see those occasional "5th skill" or "legendary skill" choices such as Shadowing or Pass Block(!) fade into total obscurity. It might also be to the advantage of some other teams which start with a lot of skills already, e.g. Dwarves, CDs ;)

Reason: ''
EastCoast
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:22 am

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by EastCoast »

dode74 wrote:I believe there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when players went from 7 to 6 earned skill: limiting to 4 would likely be rejected outright.
You're absolutely correct, about the gnashing of the teeth, but that would happen even with your proposal. I'm not entirely sure many beyond 4 or 5 coaches of particular races would even notice a difference. Of course, I also think the best gameplay occurs between 1000 and 1800 TV, so I'll be the first to acknowledge my prejudice.
There's also the fact you alluded to whereby people will likely take high utility skills, so the low utility ones won't get a look in. It's rare enough to see some skills on players at all due to there perceived relative lack of value, and limiting players to just 4 skills will likely see those occasional "5th skill" or "legendary skill" choices such as Shadowing or Pass Block(!) fade into total obscurity. It might also be to the advantage of some other teams which start with a lot of skills already, e.g. Dwarves, CDs ;)
Yeah but those skill are already obscure, who are we kidding? No player fast enough to actually take shadowing will have it for long anyway, they're usually marking a player that can kill them at any time ;)

So the answer to that, is to do the same thing with sub-optimal skills that is already done. You sprinkle them on a roster at a discount. Right? This is what currently happens with Thick Skull, Catch, Shadowing, etc. Nobody really takes these skills, but they are still in the game.

Reason: ''
User avatar
spubbbba
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: York

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by spubbbba »

dode74 wrote:You could, but people like building their teams. I believe there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when players went from 7 to 6 earned skill: limiting to 4 would likely be rejected outright.
Nah, that was never an issue in lrb4 due to ageing, so the loss of a skill at that level wasn't much of an issue. A large chunk of players don't really benefit much from more than a 1 or 2 skills.

Often you'd get a player with some great skills early on and not want him to get spp's as he was already great as is and you didn't want to risk ageing, plus those spp's would add TR.

Reason: ''
My past and current modelling projects showcased on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by dode74 »

@ Eastcoast
You're absolutely correct, about the gnashing of the teeth, but that would happen even with your proposal. I'm not entirely sure many beyond 4 or 5 coaches of particular races would even notice a difference. Of course, I also think the best gameplay occurs between 1000 and 1800 TV, so I'll be the first to acknowledge my prejudice.
Fair enough, but that's not the TV area I'm aiming at: it's really 2000+, i.e. at or after the tipping point for SE.
Yeah but those skill are already obscure, who are we kidding? No player fast enough to actually take shadowing will have it for long anyway, they're usually marking a player that can kill them at any time
Already obscure is no reason to make them more obscure. It would also have an effect on the more interesting doubles skills for some players. DT on a BOB? No thanks, I need Block, Guard, MB and SF...
[/quote]So the answer to that, is to do the same thing with sub-optimal skills that is already done. You sprinkle them on a roster at a discount. Right? This is what currently happens with Thick Skull, Catch, Shadowing, etc. Nobody really takes these skills, but they are still in the game.[/quote]Roster changes was what I wanted to avoid.

@spubbbba
Ageing is gone now, though, and people do like their big teams (I am told). It's true that a large chunk of players benefit less than others from more than 1 or 2 skills, and it is this developmental imbalance which I am trying to partially address by making those that do benefit pay for it.

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et

Post by VoodooMike »

dode74 wrote:The only reason to reject it is fluff, really.
What is the "fluff" behind doubles costing more in terms of TV? Seems more like a "well, we've been doing it since the start" thing than something that is adhering to any thematic fluff. I can understand that somewhere in the annals of time the designers thought the doubles skills would give them a special advantage, and thus, should be accounted for in terms of TV... but nobody takes that extra 10 TV into account when selecting skills... it just serves to make TV a worse measure of performance.
dode74 wrote:I'm not aiming at even development across all teams, just at curbing those teams which perform well at higher TVs, i.e. evening out higher TV play a little.
A lot of this seems to be predicated on the concept of "skill synergy" and I'm not sure I buy into the concept. Lets use CPOMB for our example, since that seems to be the primary skill combination people talk about in terms of "synergy". The implication is that the combination is more than the sum of its parts... and I don't think it is. I think each of those skills is very good, they just all happen to affect the same piece of the game, and so they have cumulative effect. Claw isn't useless on its own... neither is Mighty Blow... neither is Pile On. A player that has only MB and PO isn't less effective against lower AV players without Claw... Claw players always treat AV 9 as AV 7, so they're always more likely to break armor, and so on. It just so happens that there are three skills that can all be applied to the same general situation, cumulatively.

What does your system do to "even out higher TV play" exactly? It means that some teams will have higher TVs than they do now... yes, CPOMB heavy teams will. So will Dark Elf teams, likely.. in fact, all the Elf teams will, since they'll all have to pay the TV tax to get agility access.

Adjusting the skill costs themselves, however, accomplishes more without any associated issues... yes, some teams will develop faster than others in terms of TV, but that TV will reflect performance better, regardless of whether it is early or later play. How fast your TV increases will depend on your skill selections, and if you happen to be loading up on the most useful skills, your rapidly increasing TV will mean you give more inducements to the lower TV (and lower performance) teams you face, at any point in your team's career. It works for both TV matched and League environments in that way. You give skills a TV cost relative to how useful a skill is in terms of how frequently the roll it affects happens in a game, how big an effect it has, and how likely the player having the skill is to be used once he has that skill relative to before he did, and so on. The cumulative cost of things like CPOMB can still be high, without treating the components as though they're trivial, too... which they're not.

I bet we'd see Amazons curb-stomping people for a much wider TV range with what you're suggesting.
dode74 wrote:Why would new players develop more slowly?
They don't - it took a few readings to see what you were precisely suggesting. It comes down to a 10-20 TV tax on each player that has more than one normal skill category and actually wants to use them. I'm pretty much opposed to TV taxation since the game uses TV as a measure of performance for judging the amount of available inducements.
dode74 wrote:I agree in principle with the first part of that statement, but given that we are working with, at best, 5TV differences (and more likely 10TV differences) it really limits us as to how much effect this can have. With sufficient data a statistical case can be made for relative effectivenesses, and therefore costs, of skills, but there are always going to be a few skills which sit somewhere in between categories. That system can only smooth out so much. Even then it will be inaccurate on a per-match basis due to so many skills being counter-skill in nature. The typical example is that of Tackle having no on-pitch value against a team with no Dodge. Unless the intent is to recalculate on a per-match basis (possible online, much more complex on TT) then the inaccuracy remains.
I doubt we have to be that precise. It'd be nice to, but I don't think we'll ever have access to that data... so it'd require deduction over induction. It's not hard to say that in any given game, each team will throw at least one block, so any skill that alters the outcome of blocks is going to be useful every game, probably more than once, and use that to justify costing Block at 40 or even 50 TV rather than 20 (a lot of the time block is actually more useful than +1 ST as it applies in every situation, not just one where you're one ST away from the number of dice being used to change). You use that method to create skill costs ranging from 5 TV to 50 TV. If a skill is very useful, but only in certain situations, you apply a (very rounded) adjustment based on the % of the time that situation is likely to be faced.

Reason: ''
Image
Post Reply