Imagine This

[Dangerous Dave]

Neo,

PH is definitely right on this. I'll try and explain why.

The problem is that you are comparing 2 small numbers so the absolute difference between them is small. But and it is a big BUT.... that small absolute difference is a big difference in actual terms.

Perhaps this explains it better:-

If:

Player A causes 3 casualties under system 1

Player B causes 2 casualties under system 2


What would you say the difference was?


It is either 50% more casualties or 1 casualty.


Now we take another example:

Player C causes 40 casualties under system 3

Player D causes 44 casualties under system 4


OK the difference is now 4 casualties but in percentage terms the difference is now only 10%.


Neo, your method of looking at the numbers says that system 4 is more different to system 3 than system 1 to system 2. That is plainly wrong since if you multiply Player B's casualties by 20 you get:-

Player A causes 60 casualties under system 1

Player B causes 40 casualties under system 2


Now you can easily see that system 1 is way more powerful than system 2 whereas system 4 is marginally more powerful than system 3.


So take this back to the example that PH used. If you cause 8 casualties in 100 blocks and that is reduced to 6 casualties in 100 blocks, then that is a change of 25% [(8-6)/8 = 25%]. It is not a reduction of 2%. If you want a reduction of 2% then you should be looking for only 7.84 casualties per 100 blocks (0.98*8 = 7.84). That is a small reduction.


Finally one more example:-


A Saurus and a Longbeard make a standard agility roll (eg catch a bouncing ball with no TZ)

The Saurus will make the catch 1/6 times (16.7%).

The Longbeard will make it on 2/6 times (33.3%).


The Longbeard is better at catching by 100% - [(33.3-16.7)/16.7 = 100%] - ie he will achieve the result twice as many times as the Saurus will. The way you have looked at it is that the Longbeard is 16.7% better.... that is wrong.



Dave

[wesleytj]

While team balance is a very important consideration to be made when contemplating rules changes, it is hardly the ONLY one.

Other important ones include:

1. Flavor/storyline effects
2. Fun/playability issues
3. Not altering a basic function of the game unnecessarily

And so on. There are more. #1 dictates that no matter how balanced it is, I will never accept a tyranid team in my league. It just makes no sense to the storyline. #3 is my personal objection with the kicking rules. While they are somewhat interesting, and arguably more or less balanced, they screw with the basic operation game a lot, for no good reason.

What I'm getting at is that, while it may (arguably, but probably not) be balanced, your idea really screws with at least #1 and #2 of those, maybe all 3. And what does it improve? All it does is make a lot of carbon copy teams.

Sorry, I'm with the masses on this one...not a winner.

[Longshot]

My thoughts on this:

I like the idea of removing DP.
But something comes to my mind, if we remove all those skills.
If MB is used on AR or INJ, and if we still use Sigurd's Table=>There will be no dead players anymore....

Not that i like a lot of dead players, but sometimes/often like Bloodbowl game want it.

So it has to be tested but see it like this:

For a tounament like Tulips (short one on 2 days with special tournament rules) then it is ok
But not for a long tournament or season cos there will not be dead enough i guess.

Not that i am bloody (ask my opponents) but it is a part of this game.
any thoughs people?

[Acerak]

I mean - if you still think the ST teams will do OK.. then are you saying they were overpowered before?

Let me ask the question another way: do you think you could take a power team like Chaos, avoid Claw and Piling On, and win a championship? It's obvious to me that most people not arguing about percentages and how to properly represent them would have to answer "no"

-Chet

[Piepgrass]

Sorry to correct you Chet.
But i lost in the our leaguefinal to just such a team.

Poul

[Balrog]

Let me ask the question another way: do you think you could take a power team like Chaos, avoid Claw and Piling On, and win a championship? It's obvious to me that most people not arguing about percentages and how to properly represent them would have to answer "no"

-Chet

Again, you assume that the answer will be "no" based solely on your experience and opinion. The truth of the matter is that by removing those two skills you do indeed weaken the team but a good coach will still find a way to win.

Now, does that justify the removal of the skills? No.
Blood Bowl is a complex game, where the many choices available to a coach provide diversity and challenge. Eliminating skills could be one of the worst directions to take the game in.

About MB and statistics: my opinion about the new MB is not based on statistics, it is just based on gut instinct (although I do enjoy the math behind this wole argument). Now while this is not admissible as proof to anyone else, its enough for me. See? Choice. I choose not to take MB because I believe it to be an inferior skill to say Guard or Piling On.

-Balrog

[neoliminal]

Neo,
PH is definitely right on this. I'll try and explain why.

I understand what PH is saying Dave. What I'm trying to understand is how to say what I'm saying...

The change is very MINOR. It only affects 2 out of 100 blocks... AT MOST a player can make 16 blocks a game. I'd say the average is more likely to be around 5 for a blocker type. Assuming 5 blocks per game, that's 20 games to make 100 blocks... or to convert it back to the 2 out of 100, one in ten games, you'll notice a player miss a casualty due to the change in this rule.

I seriously doubt there are many people here who have played 20 games with a Mighty Blow player.

So Dave, I'm not questioning PH's math, just trying to figure out what statistical verbage will resolve our ongoing semantical debate. The numbers are plain for most to see... but using more precise statistical analysis wont change my point: It's a very minor change.

[Zombie]

What I'm trying to understand is how to say what I'm saying...

The change is very MINOR. It only affects 2 out of 100 blocks... AT MOST a player can make 16 blocks a game. I'd say the average is more likely to be around 5 for a blocker type. Assuming 5 blocks per game, that's 20 games to make 100 blocks... or to convert it back to the 2 out of 100, one in ten games, you'll notice a player miss a casualty due to the change in this rule.

Just say it like this and don't use any percentages, because they don't work for what you're saying. You're talking about number of occurences, not percentages.

But what you're saying doesn't mean much anyway. I'm sure that taking your approach, one could "prove" that mighty blow itself is pretty useless, since it only affects very few blocks. That's clearly not true since mighty blow is still a great skill to have.

It's obvious to me that most people not arguing about percentages and how to properly represent them would have to answer "no"

Who started to use percentages in this thread in the first place? That statement of yours was just to try and discredit some of the people who are arguing against you. Discuss the argument, not the person.

Anyway, dare to try a poll on this issue to see how many people would actually like to see less skills like you propose, how many like it like it is and how many would like to see more?

[neoliminal]

Just say it like this and don't use any percentages, because they don't work for what you're saying. You're talking about number of occurences, not percentages.

Fair enough.

But what you're saying doesn't mean much anyway. I'm sure that taking your approach, one could "prove" that mighty blow itself is pretty useless, since it only affects very few blocks. That's clearly not true since mighty blow is still a great skill to have.

The odds that you will need MB are the odds that you will roll exactly the Armour or Injury number required and thus fail by 1 point. The odds that the change will affect you are the odds that you will roll exactly the Armour and Injury number required.

So what you're syaing doesn't mean much.

[Acerak]

Anyway, dare to try a poll on this issue to see how many people would actually like to see less skills like you propose, how many like it like it is and how many would like to see more?

I didn't try a poll. I asked people to start a discussion. To some extent, it succeeded in ways that a poll wouldn't. Again, I wasn't advocating such a system. I wanted to know what you folks thought of it, that's all.

And now I know

-Chet

[Zombie]

To neoliminal:

I know that the mighty blow skill has a greater effect than Acerak's proposed change. But what i'm telling you is that your weird application of percentages that tell (erroneously) that there's only a 2% decrease, would also tell that there's something like a 5% decrease if a player were to lose the mighty blow skill. Then we could go on saying that mighty blow is pretty useless, because 5% doesn't matter. We know that mighty blow is far from useless. Do you see where i'm coming from now?

[Dangerous Dave]

OK - maths works

So if you have only one player with Mighty Blow on the team, it makes little difference. Agreed there..... now heres the crux. Any self respecting Bashing team will have several players with Mighty Blow (well maybe Balrog's doesn't - but he would have if the skill was better) . Not one. So lets say a team has 5 players with Mighty Blow. Now - what effect does this have?

Now let's take Neo's example that says each will have 5 blocks per game - that's only 1.5 blocks per turn (you will block with the players most likely to cause casualties 5 blocks * 5 players = 25 / 16 turns) - I would say that is light. Sure sometimes you may only have a blitz but generally you will have more than that. So let's say the real number is 2.5 blocks per turn. That is 40 blocks per game. Now a 2 block in 100 change is starting to look more important. This means that you have an 80% chance of getting an additional casualty. In addition, Mighty Blow will cause more KOs and, since it can be used in your opponent's turn too you may get some additional use there.

Now here's where it gets more interesting. Get some of those players with Frenzy, some with Piling On, some with Claw and / or some with Razor Sharp Claw. The number of blocks go up and the number of casualties go up. That's the point using a Strength team is all about accretive damage. Each one skill on its own doesn't have too much effect - add them together and you have some potent weapons.


Dave

[Zombie]

You don't understant Dave. If it takes 5 players with mighty blow before the skill becomes useful, then the skill isn't very useful, is it? Those 5 players could instead pick something which they'd use more often, like pro for example. They could also get more specialized skills, like kick, dirty player, strip ball, etc. But we know that mighty blow is useful, very useful, for every single player who has it.

Besides, if you have 5 players on your team with mighty blow and the opponent lets them make 40 blocks, he's pretty dumb. Your star blitzer with mighty blow might make a lot of blocks and blitzes, but your other players shouldn't make nearly as many. However, that doesn't mean that mighty blow is useless for them, not by a long shot!

[Ghost of Pariah]

Let me ask the question another way: do you think you could take a power team like Chaos, avoid Claw and Piling On, and win a championship? It's obvious to me that most people not arguing about percentages and how to properly represent them would have to answer "no"

Well, I'm not arguing percentages and I don't see why you couldn't. The better question is would you really want to? Why not ask if you could coach an Amazon team without Blodge?

[Acerak]

Why not ask if you could coach an Amazon team without Blodge?

Because I already know the answer! They're perfectly capable of performing as is. Mind you, they're perfectly INcapable if you roll an abnormal amount of 1s and 2s when you throw your dice (through the window).

Cheers!

-Chet