Talk Fantasy Football

I'm the one who is going to be bashed - again.

Question:
Are the 15 Team Races in Blood Bowl balanced ?
Well, most of you will respond, if you count Halflings and Goblins out, then all Teams are perfectly balanced.

Surprise, surprise, I disagree. I think one has to consider the scenario. For example a mode of play known as "Open League" allows Coaches to build up or recover against opponents of a race and teamrating of their liking.

I want to make the Question more precise: Is every possible matchup in Blood Bowl balanced ? (To make things a little bit easier, it's assumed that oposing teams have roughly the same team rating.)

Now, you might say, think of a league environment, you don't have to win every match to stay on top. That is a valid point, for league play, and long term team developement. However, in tournament play, the game is broken if TR 150 "Stone Elf" > TR 150 "Night Elf" so it's an automatical win for "Stone Elves".

Now, has every Race apart from Goblins and Halflings the same Chance of winning a tournament ? I think NOT. Dwarf Teams will NEVER win ANYTHING, same with Wood Elfes.

No every match up isn't balenced but its about as close as its going to get with 13 offical rosters atm (exclusing stunties)

Some are going to start strong and get weaker, other start weak and get better, thats life.

I am sure in starcraft, where iirc there are 3 races to play, that one of them is better for a quick rush at the start, another is better in the long game, some are better on some maps than others. I didn't play starcraft all that much so I am speculating on this.

Though look at age of empires which i did play a fair bit of online. There are 12 races in that iirc and they were all better at different things, some at sea attack, some at digging in behind walls, others at fast attacking, some at expensive more powerful advanced troops but were weaker at the start.

As for tournaments, depending on the format I think all the races have a chance of winning, including the stunty teams. I played halflings at spiky last year with my undead (against vorner) and I tihnk I was lucky to get the win, it could have easily been a draw or I might have even lost. Longshot almost won the dutch open with woodelves and was leading all the way to the last match, think he came 3rd in the end and marcus managed 10th with them at the blood bowl, without using a star player. Dwarfs will have a hard time if its just based on TDs, but in the right format they could easily win, same with chaos.

I think on any given day with any given equalish matchup that the races are pretty much spot on when it comes to balence.

Wood Elfs are THE best team early and mid development. They are consistently in the top of our leagues rankings.

Dwarfs are also a good team that rank high in our league when played by people that play Dwarf Ball not elf ball. No other team is as good at ball control from the start as Dwarfs.

Does this mean that all the teams are balanced? No, I think several need some help to bring them into the top tier of power ranking. But, this is very little help .

The problem is that some teams need lots of development before they are good, while others need little or none. Some teams are good early, but fade once the other teams develop. The Question is, does GW want this? Do they want a disparity in power at the start and end of the development cycle based soley on what team you chose to play? Or, do they want to balance this out.

Are the 15 Team Races in Blood Bowl balanced ?

Not perfectly balanced. However, I'm in the opinion that it's reasonably close.

Something you need to consider though... Is it really necessary to keep it perfectly balanced or are there other ways to get around this problem? I really don't see how you can make teams perfectly balanced. And even if you did, you'd get into trouble when someone rolls that +ST on a player...

However, in tournament play, the game is broken if TR 150 "Stone Elf" > TR 150 "Night Elf"

Well. This is a tricky subject. Is it the rosters that are not balanced or is it the TR system that is broken?

In my opinion, TR isn't even close to being a fair indication of how strong a team is. In an environment where teams will be uneven (ie, a TR 200 team can play against a TR 100 team) you need to handle it in a slightly different way.

Assuming people play competetively and are ranked in some way, you should reward a win against a stronger team more than a win against a weaker team. NAF uses an ELO based ranking system which FUMBBL has adopted which will do this which does this.

In short, what you do is that you calculate a theoretical win probability and use that as a guide for how much to increase or decrease a player's ranking depending on the outcome of the game.

FUMBBL recently switched over to use a custom strength value for ranking purposes instead of TR. So far, it's turned out really well:

FUMBBL Strength vs TR in rankings

This chart shows the expected win probability from the ranking formula (p) using either TR or our strength value compared to the actual results.

Now, the algorithm used to calculate the strength value is nothing I would ever attempt by hand due to the complexity of it. It's also not publically available anywhere at this point but it's based on JJs original player cost system.

The system doesn't care if you're a dwarf or a wardancer and only looks at the stats and skills of the player. This means that the system will be able to cope with teams that are not balanced.

I truly think this is the way to go if GW/Fanatic decides to make an online version of the game.

-- Christer

Can an admin disable Toby's ability to create new posts?

Are all the teams balanced? This is not as straight forward a question as one might think.

The first thing you have to ask is are the teams balanced in and of themselves? The answer is, with the exception of Humans, no. Nor were they designed to be. Each team was designed for a specific style of play. Orcs and Chaos are bashy teams, while elves are... well, elves. Skaven are quick but break easy, dwarves are slow but tough, etc. And, of course, Gobo's and 'Flings are funny.

When you compaire the teams to each other, are they balanced? Again, I think the answer is no. Again, however, I think that they were designed that way. But in this case, the balance issues are minor, and designed to force tactical play, rather than relying on dice rolls. What I mean is, if you know how to play the team, both strengths and weeknesses, there is no balance issues to speak of. The teams are as balanced as you can expect, given that they were made to represent different styles of play.

Chris

Not another "I hate everything about blood bowl" post.

Exactly what would you change if you were Jervis J and and wanted to make it more balanced ?

Rulesets for different styles of play.

Did you read BB2003booklet.pdf ?
For example, it disables "Serious Injury". Worst possible injury is "Badly Hurt". Makes it a different game for a Wood Elf team...

I think there is need for rulesets for "Tournament Play", where focus is on the skill of the Coaches. Another ruleset should cover "League Play", where the game is more about long term team developement.

For example, I totaly agree that "Serious Injury" and "Dead!" have no place in "Tournament Play".

What would I do if I was in charge? Great question.

Only make Big Guys open to a team if they exchange a positional player for them. Reduce the Rat Ogre and Minotaur's strength to a 4, change WA so that they are not turnover fodder and recost BG's. Remove the Ogre from Chaos, Orc, Halfing, Goblin and Dwarf, but provide Dwarves with 2 additional blitzers or a rookie deathroller position. Change Take Root to an on pitch effect. Add 10k to the price of Amazon linewomen, or give them Agility access instead of General. Give Chaos a 0-2 positional player slot with a skill (block or sure hands). Keep the Undead, but reduce them back to 0-2 wights. Never make Pact teams or allies official. Split some of the lesser used physical traits into "physical skills" and make them open to Skaven, Chaos, Minotaurs and Rat Ogres on a normal roll. Playtest the hell out of all of this to make sure it works the way I think it will.

Commission a rookie Bull Centaur model. Let the BRCC look over something before it's printed in the BBmag. Work with Skiijunkie and Anthony to get an online game system linked to and ranked with the NAF. Make free promotional flyers and posters for people who want to start leagues in their local store. Sell "Nuffle made me do it." T-shirts with a picture of a player being thrown off for fouling.

Skummy wrote:Only make Big Guys open to a team if they exchange a positional player for them.

Skummy would you have a look at those team lists of mine ?

It features something I would call de-bundeling player and position.

For Example, If you assigned a Troll the BLOCKER Position, It would cost an Orc Team an Black Orc Blocker and an Chaos Dwarf Team an Chaos Dwarf Blocker "Slot" to include the Big Guy. (Big Guy RC must be expanded to say "only one player with this RC on a team")

Please have a look, and btw, I like your idea of the Big Guys using a Position Slot. Its great, it balances teams without further atrocities like "Wild Animal" currently is.

tournament rules are all down to the organiser, everyone i have attended has used different rules and ones i haven't been to have used different rules again

There is a Tournaments Section in LRB, and a League Play section.

I would opt for expanding these two.

If it was up to me, for example, Stars would be permanent in Leagues, but only freebooted in Tournaments.

I want to get some input/feedback for "Official LRB Tournament Play Rules"
So far I consider the BB2003booklet.pdf to be that.

Toby wrote:If it was up to me, for example, Stars would be permanent in Leagues, but only freebooted in Tournaments.

Okay, that makes no sense. First off, Stars are WAY unbalancing. For someone that keeps saying they want more balance in the teams, making Stars permanent is NOT the way to go about it.

Secondly, why would you make them permanent in leagues, but not in tournies? Most tournies that I know of don't give money or SPP's between rounds... your team "re-sets" at the end of a match, like in the Blood Bowl tourny. Using this system, freebooting isn't an option, as a player, any player, is either on your team or not.

Chris

Reduce my statement to the core please.

Stars in Tournaments = no thx
Stars in Leagues = yes plz

And I think all current Stars should be removed, there should be new ones.
At least remove all Secret Weapon and Big Guy Stars.

Toby wrote:Reduce my statement to the core please.

Stars in Tournaments = no thx
Stars in Leagues = yes plz.

You know, Toby, no one else I know backtracks their statements as much as you do. I responded to your statement as typed, which said something completly different that what's above.

As for answering the above, I agree no Stars in tournies. I stand by my above statement about Stars in leagues. They are, by their very nature, unbalancing.

Toby wrote:And I think all current Stars should be removed, there should be new ones.
At least remove all Secret Weapon and Big Guy Stars.

Why bother? I mean, I'm all for making the Stars fluff only, but why make new ones? If you make them balanced for rookie teams, they aren't really stars, and if you make them really stars, then they are just as unbalancing as the original batch of stars.

If you insist on something like this, why not do something simmilar to the 2nd edition way of making teams, and allow the purchase of SPP's for player on your team, thus upgrading your team before a game even begins?

Just for the record, I'm against this idea, but it at least seems more plausable than making new stars.

Chris