Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[Chris]

ANother suggestion I've just seen on a different thread is to make piling on a fouling skill.

[the.tok]

A simple solution would be... like a kind of "one skill per action" rule

/turns flameshield on

[Kort]

I also think that the player development is lacking in variety. The main reason is that some skills are just more useful than others.

Before we go into radical changes that involve changing the values of the skills and allowing , I think it would be less risky to first try to rebalance the skills somewhat.

There are many skills available currently, but quantity does not imply variety. I think it would be possible to make some less attractive skills more attractive by somewhat combining their effects, even if it means reducing a priori the number of available choices. The obvious example would be to recreate the old Foul Appearance/Disturbing Presence combo in one skill.

I also think that Dode's idea of boosting the Pass skill is a step in the right direction: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35377

[mattgslater]

Okay, I'm good with the +1 fix. Taking the re-roll out of Piling On solves the problem cold, because it's the squaring of failure odds that's the real killer. The new Piling On would still be a fair late pick, though not nearly as good. Maybe some kind of buff from +1, though... at just +1, it wouldn't be a very good skill.

I understand that technically, all formats but one are "house rules" formats, and that as a designer, you put less stock in avoiding house rules problems. But almost all Blood Bowl is played in formats with houseuled league structures, and TV-driven perpetual formats represent a majority of all BB actually played, and a sizeable minority of BB coaches, including a number of paying Cyanide customers (as opposed to the rest of us, who download free rules, make our own pitches, and buy third-party minis and dice, or play on the unaffiliated FUMBBL). So get off your high horse about matchmaking formats, like somehow they didn't count because format is a house rule. By that token, you can ignore problems that only creep up in scheduled leagues, and problems that only creep up in non-progression tournaments (you know, like official ones?) and whatnot. Not a good line of reasoning, lets you get away with anything just by pointing at the one "rule" that it's expected most leagues won't follow.

Oh, and Blood Bowl is a connoisseur's game. Lots of people who know their way around games and game design are into BB. BB has also (for this reason in part) been the subject of a radical democratization in its design and revision process, and a lot of the people in this conversation were in on (or at least keenly aware of) the evolution of this game over the last decade or more. So your thing about the best gamers and the best game designers, while quite true, doesn't therefore mean that the community of respected BB coaches isn't knowledgeable about the subject of BB game design.

[dode74]

The maths shows that the +1 does the job pretty well.

As for "everyone plays it that way", doesn't make it right
It would be better if it was played in an open league format as suggested by the designers (match by Elo).

[mattgslater]

As for "everyone plays it that way", doesn't make it right

Yes, it does. It's a game. There are some things that there's a right way and a wrong way for, but game league format is the best counterexample I can think of, frankly. Ice cream flavoring....

Argumentum ad populam is not just a tempting fallacy because of some trick of human psychology. It's tempting because it has legitimate, non-fallacious, applications, and just tends to get overused. Facebook is better exactly because everybody uses it. BB MM formats are better because I can get a goddamned game against a good opponent, rather than knocking around one of my mediocre local coaches or, even worse, having yet another romp against that stupid Cyanide AI.

Oh, and the problem occurs in online perpetual formats too. Not just Box and MM, Ranked has the problem almost as bad. Perpetual formats, that's where the problem is. You may not see it in local TT formats, at least not for a few years after implementation. But once everyone's got in 50 games, you'll hit the Claw wall.

Like I said before, perpetual matchmaking coaches are often paying customers. TT coaches these days are largely freeloaders. The game should cater to perpetual matchmaking formats as much as it caters to TT leagues.

[dode74]

No matter the flavour of the ice cream you still eat it with your mouth. No matter which car you prefer you still drive it from the seat from which it was intended to be driven (unless you add further modifications to allow you to do otherwise).

My point is that some variations work and others don't, and when the designer of anything tells you that you are using it in a manner for which it was not intended then you are foolish to complain if it doesn't work properly.
viewtopic.php?p=583648#p583648

But as I said with Cyanide's MM ... the rules were not meant to be used on leagues that did only TV matchings for match-ups. Its not organic and it ignores that certain inducements were added in to help weed down those higher TV teams.

Regarding FUMBBL
- The site says you have to own a box set of BB to play there. In theory, then, EVERYONE who plays FUMBBL has a box set of BB and plays that.
- Ranked had the same 15% rule as until recently. It was TV matched as much as was. Now that has been done away with we shall see.

[Rhyoth]

Could we please stay focus ? I think we get it, CPOMB is a powerful combo, so, considering Joe's rule, it seems obvious that at least one of them (maybe 2, or even 3) should be "taxed". However, further discussions about should be modified those 3 skills seems off-topic.

@ Kort I beg to differ with you, rebalancing the skills seems much trickier and radical to me (ex : let's assume Block Dodge and Guard worth more than 20 k, how would you change them ? and how big would be the impact on the game) : it seems like a lot of hard work, and the final result is all but guaranteed...



That being said, i'd like to talk about decreasing some skills price. I'd be happy to discuss wether or not we should bring such change to the game, but for now, let's assume this change is needed.

If so, how do we determine the skills to be discounted ?
A good start would be to see which skills are less often picked, but that would only give us some hints ; on the other hand actually proving those skills are overcosted with an on-field study seems, at best, extremly tricky.

So, let's try a different approach and do a bit of reasonning, and list out some reason to decrease one skill price :
1) some skills are very specific and situationnal, if the situation does not pop out, you're carrying a dead weight in your TV, so does it feels right to pay for something you won't use ?

2) some skills seems quite poor if not combined it with another skill (ex : Sprint, VLL), so is it right to pay for a full skill, if this skill needs another one to work ?

3) About passing, skills that improves throwing are comparable in effectivness to skills that improve catching. However, while you have one thrower (easy to protect or to get out of the opponent range), you often need several catchers (which are often much easier to target by the opponent. So basically, having one thrower with Pass+Accurate is almost as effective as having 2 or 3 Catchers with Catch+Diving Catch, which cost you much more. So, a discount on those skills seems right

Now, before anything else, let's set up a "safety net" and define which skills should not be a part of the 10k list :

1) skills with a high "spamming value" : if we're wrong about making some skills worth 10k instead of 20k, the damage would be important if we include those kind of skills. So it's better to exclude (or at least be very cautious before we include them) skills with an added value when taken multiple times (more than 3 or 4 times), such as Fend, Foul Appearance, Prehensile Tail...

2) avoid cheap combo, if you have 2 skills which combined very well with each other, then you should obviously not include both of them in the list

3) some skills were obviously designed to give "ball play" options to teams that are not designed to be good with the ball (particulary Strong Arm, and Extra Arms). It's probably better not ot include them as well.

Considering all that, here is my list of 10 k skills (please note it's still a "minimal" list):
Pass Block, Shadowing, Catch, Diving Catch, Sprint, Multiple Block, Thick Skull, Hail Mary Pass, Nerves of steal, Big Hand, Tentacles, Very Long Legs.

WDYT ?

[garion]

Considering all that, here is my list of 10 k skills (please note it's still a "minimal" list):
Pass Block, Shadowing, Catch, Diving Catch, Sprint, Multiple Block, Thick Skull, Hail Mary Pass, Nerves of steal, Big Hand, Tentacles, Very Long Legs.

WDYT ?

I think the ones in red need to be 20k, as a big fan of Skaven I take Big Hand and Shadowing when I can. They are excellent skills and you have to look at skills when used to there most effective in to account as well. Yes Big Hand can be a bit pointless on all other teams but skaven and underwolrd can use it uber effectively. Tentacles is also imo the second best mutation skill there is, the only reason it is so uncommon at the moment is because of Claws popularity and the kill stack, if claw was 30k I think tentacles would be more common as a 20k skilll, if it was a 10k skill I would spam it across all 4 of my Nurgle warriors for sure. Still don't get the minor nerf to the Lrb4 tentacles mind. Would love to know why that was changed really, as it was very small but just made it a tiny bit less interesting.

[dode74]

Personally I think a better bet is to buff those skills which are rarely taken and keep costs the same. See my passing thread for an example.

I also agree with garion regarding big hand, shadowing and tentacles. I'd add sprint to that for the same reason (skaven 1TTD).

[Kort]

@ Kort I beg to differ with you, rebalancing the skills seems much more trickier and radical to me (ex : let's assume Block Dodge and Guard worth more than 20 k, how would you change them ? and how big would be the impact on the game) : it seems like a lot of hard work, and the final result is all but guaranteed...

I agree with you, rebalancing all the skills is hard work. What I propose is of more limited scope. I would like to see some more variety, even if the above tier-1 skills still remain the best. I would say there is some progress to be made in the tier-2 level, the one corresponding to skills such as Tackle, Frenzy, etc. I just think that removing some kill choices which are almost never taken anyway could help with that.

I would also mention that skills such as Block and Dodge could also be rebalanced. Block can be divided into Offensive Block and Defensive Block. Dodge can be divied into Defensive Dodge and Movement Dodge. But I am not advocating that.

[mattgslater]

Galak's point is great when you're saying things about not breaking the game in some vain attempt to accommodate every little house rule. But the two camps seem to be "it's a manageable problem" and "it's a serious problem", and both camps can quickly come up with rules ideas to untangle it in either case. What's to debate?

I think Prehensile Tail belongs on the list. It's got spam value, but the starting value is so low, and can't be increased by playing a stronger team like Tentacles can.

If you want a cautionary tale about wasting skills on PT, I can refer you to Goons Liek Hugz. They were doing fine until they started getting too many guys up to Prehensile Tail.

Is there any indication that massed Shadowing is at all competitive? I doubt it strongly, and it does sound like fun. It's a decent skill on some players, as the pinnacle of a combo (say Block/Dodge/SS/Tackle/Shadowing on a Werewolf, late skill on a Gutter Runner), but it's never great, even then: coaches take it because it's suddenly good enough to justify, barely, and they've always wanted an excuse. I could see how it's either/or with Shadowing and Tail; I think it would be better to include Shadowing, so you have two G skills on the list. I agree that Tentacles is too good on some players to put on the list, once you start culling it like that. Big Hand is borderline. Occasionally it's a great pick, but usually only on a highly advanced player, or a very lucky Skaven Thrower on doubles, or on the less competitive (than Skaven) Underworld. I'd also take Catch off the list: it's common enough on starting templates, and has little sex appeal as a spam skill. Making it good just helps teams with A access, passing ability, and no Catchers, and Dark Elves are good enough.

Ah, here's a way to do it... would work well in a perpetual league. If a player spent an improvement on any skill on the list, subtract 10k from his value. Only 10k, no matter how many such improvements he takes.

Matt's proposed list, v3
G: Pass Block, Shadowing
A: Diving Catch, Sprint
P: Hail Mary Pass, Nerves of Steel
S: Multiple Block, Thick Skull
M: Prehensile Tail, Very Long Legs

And if a player has any three of the following skills, add 10k to his value. Only 10k even if he has six of them. Count only skills taken through improvements: players starting with power skills already pay a premium. (That, or at least cut 10k off Amazon Blitzers).

G: Block, Tackle, Wrestle
A: Dodge, Side Step
S: Guard, Mighty Blow, Piling On
M: Claw

[dode74]

Galak's point is great when you're saying things about not breaking the game in some vain attempt to accommodate every little house rule.

I'm not sure what you mean. He quite clearly states that TV-based MM - the organisational method you are stating is the best way because "everyone does it" - was not the way to use the rules. I don't know how much clearer than "the rules were not meant to be used on leagues that did only TV matchings for match-ups" you can get, and yet you defend it

[mattgslater]

I'm not saying it's the best way because everybody does it. I'm saying that for some coaches it's the only way available.

I also insist that it's not strictly a problem in TV-based matchmaking rules. It's a problem in perpetual challenge formats, too. Such as the one in the rulebook. Or are those people heretics too for some other reason, equally unworthy of mighty rules tweaking?

[dode74]

Now, now, no need to get tetchy. I insist it's not a problem in perpetual leagues, challenge or otherwise. Certainly in the over 100 games the OCC has been going for there has been no issue. And before you bring up [R ] again that also had TV limits for games to count. Do you have any stats available for challenge leagues which work as per the rulebook then, since you insist that it is a problem there?

As for it being the only way available, that's the fault of the sites and developers who impose these artificial limitations. Cyanide have been told time and time again, and Christer (who has produced a superb site and I mean no criticism of his work) is at least moving in the right direction with his change to the 15% rule in [R ].