Long term success in a league

[Megr1m]

@ Megr1m: I like your thinking, and I remember wistfully the days when it was the right lens through which to view the game. Look at any of my teams, and you'll see how I have stubbornly held to my "spread the love" philosophy. You'll also see that many of my losses are against old teams with a few stars, teams that my old-timer mindset says should have been easy rollovers.

I think every player from 3ed/LRB4 has a really hard time to stop "spreading the love" as you said. I used to be such an important part of the game to give TD to your linemen to skill them up. I often have to hold back from handing off from a star, I still have the feeling I'm doing something bad if I let him hog SPP.

Which is ironic, since I'm a strictly lrb5/6 player with almost zero prior experience (apart from the old PC game, which was 3rd ed?). I just take issue with the assertion that lopsided Skaven teams are the best way to play them, are immune to player loss, and can beat everyone ever regardless of TV difference. Some team can get away with this (read: Wood Elves) because everything they have is that good out of the box, but Skaven really, really can not.

[dode74]

Yeah, I think we're going around on three points of departure.

Is that what whack-a-mole meant? I know the game, I'm just not aware of the use of those words in this context.

Reference your 3 points:
1. I don't think statistical analysis is vicious any more than I think knives are. They are both useful tools which can be used to disect whatever it is you're looking at very well indeed. What you need to be careful of is killing the thing you're looking at in the process. I agree that BB is a hugely compex game, and I suspect that is one reason that AIs for it suck, but I'm not talking about that when I say that you can take statistical analysis too far. What I am saying is that looking at any particular aspect around which the game was not originally balanced and then claiming that the game is unbalanced because of it is shifting the goalposts - it's like saying that rock/paper/scissors is unbalanced if you remove any games that have rock in from your data.

2. I disagree with almost all of this. I don't think they've gone too far, I do think that the teams which could be killed before can still be killed, and I don't think that the "un-fun shoe" has shifted. What I see happening is a cycle for all teams where they lose some players and spend some time recuperating. The depth of the loss and the time taken to recuperate is balanced by how often that loss happens. For Skaven, regular losses are balanced by them being recoverable fairly quickly; for Orcs, their occassional losses sometimes take some time to recover from. In both of those cases Nuffle can decide to deal a team-breaking few games.

3. Aggregates are what the game was designed around. See my rock/paper/scissors point above. If it's hard for you (not you specifically, a hypothetical "you") to have fun because your team is dying then maybe you need to play a different game. BB is niche, and it's enjoyed by those who play it for the same reasons that there are a lot of people who don't enjoy it - it's a matter of taste. I disagree entirely that rules should be changed to target a different audience (one that doesn't want their team to die) - not that this is what you are suggesting, I just want to give an opinion on that line of reasoning.
As for elf teams becoming unplayable, it's entirely possible. A few too many casualties and lost expensive positionals would make it very difficult to compete, just as it would for Orcs. It's all a part of the cycle I described above, and the vagaries of Nuffle mean that sometimes you get butt-hurt several times in succession. I actually like that - it means that the teams which are reliable tactically can be unreliable strategically and vice versa, which (if what I am seeing is the case) is a really nice mechanic.

Much of what I am seeing from your arguments appears to be comparison to LRB4. Perhaps it is not the case that this version is bad, but that this version is different and you need to adjust your expectations accordingly?

[mattgslater]

a) Whack-a-Mole is the act of returning to asked-and-answered questions after you've run out of arguments. Like the arcade game where you have a hammer and the little mole-thing will pop up from one of five holes, and you have to hit it before it goes down.

b) I see your point about how the game was balanced, but I'm completely unmoved by it. A game is what it is, not what its designers intended it to be.

c) Recuperation time plays strongly into W/L record; it's the element of sustained damage that leads to multiple losses. You can't balance against that unless you're balancing competitive elements. Damage to Skaven teams almost never impacts their competitiveness in any way (elves, less so). So between a team that gets hurt more but copes with it like it never happened and a team that gets hurt less but can't handle the worst of it, the latter gets screwed.

LRB5+ worked so hard to stop (not make unlikely, stop) team death among fast teams, but then they put in a mechanic that brings team death to slow teams instead. It's like taking all this time to button up your raincoat and put on your gloves, then going barefoot into the elements.

d) Don't tell me to find another game. I'm a lifelong Blood Bowl fan. There are no other games, AFAIC.

[dode74]

a) Good thing that didn't happen then, since at no point had I agreed that the answers given were valid. I do know the game though and can see the analogy, but for it to be considered accurate the questions need to be put to bed by both sides, I think.

b) I have no idea what you mean by "A game is what it is, not what its designers intended it to be". It works in accordance with the aims set out by the BBRC, afaik, so it is therefore what the designers intended it to be within those parameters. Whether other parameters have since made themselves apparent I have no idea, but the design is a process and review is a part of that process.

c) Again, I disagree. The teams which get hurt little and often spend most of their time a fair margin below peak efficiency. Those which get hurt rarely but nastily spend most of their time building from well below peak to peak, with a period spent at or about peak before dropping off again. To my mind that balances out - it's reliability vs risk, but reversed to what we see on the pitch (agi teams normally being the risk-takers and bash teams normally being the reliable but generally slow ball movers).

I really disagree that fast teams no longer die. I have stats from FOL for the average lifespan of a team, and the bashers last way longer than the agi teams.

d) I didn't. I was VERY careful not to. I specifically said I was talking about a hypothetical you and not you personally. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully?

[mattgslater]

a) Good thing that didn't happen then, since at no point had I agreed that the answers given were valid. I do know the game though and can see the analogy, but for it to be considered accurate the questions need to be put to bed by both sides, I think.

Okay, fair enough. In that case, don't talk past my reply; address you concerns with it, so we can discuss.

b) I have no idea what you mean by "A game is what it is, not what its designers intended it to be". It works in accordance with the aims set out by the BBRC, afaik, so it is therefore what the designers intended it to be within those parameters. Whether other parameters have since made themselves apparent I have no idea, but the design is a process and review is a part of that process.

That last part is the critical part. What I mean is, designers setting objectives to improve the game is a wonderful way to get started on the process, and to find inspiration. But you can't judge the results of your efforts by how they meet the objectives set out. Your real objective is to create a great game, and you have to be on the lookout for unintended consequences big and small.

Mind you, I think in general LRB5 is much better, and I also think it's a big step toward getting rid of the vicious team-killing mechanics of earlier editions. I just don't think there's a huge opportunity cost to trying to go farther, especially as a few balancing tweaks may seem warranted, so long as they play into the food chain (don't help Orcs vs elves, do help them survive CPOMB, so you can force them to rebuild sometimes without having to rebuild as completely.)

c) Again, I disagree. The teams which get hurt little and often spend most of their time a fair margin below peak efficiency. Those which get hurt rarely but nastily spend most of their time building from well below peak to peak, with a period spent at or about peak before dropping off again. To my mind that balances out - it's reliability vs risk, but reversed to what we see on the pitch (agi teams normally being the risk-takers and bash teams normally being the reliable but generally slow ball movers).

The difference there is in the opinion that all teams can get knocked far off their peak. I think there are some teams whose peak range starts so low that all they need to do is maintain a few #1 skills, or one of two or three players, to remain competitive. They can take a little damage, and it might hurt a tad game over game, but the teams that can put Journeymen on the line and expect the same results can expect very consistent performance on the line, while the bog teams who want to force 323 action and dominate center-pitch: these teams suddenly become unreliable.

Unreliable in perpetual play translates to "loser" in my mind: if my team always does about what I expect it to do (not necessarily what I want it to do, I expect bad with my good), I usually win. With Orcs, that's only true until the wrong dice come down and I lose my LOS, and all I can expect is guys who fall down, get hurt, expose my expensive pieces. You talk about your counter-experience, but you make it clear that you play in an agile format. Send your Orc buddies to some small, old (LRB5-wise) perpetual leagues, and they'll find themselves playing Dodge-free Amazons.

Yes, there's a "food chain" element going on, and to some extent it's fine. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't lead to new, unintended consequences when you put it in practice, especially in the smaller leagues that make up the majority of TT play in little towns and far-flung places around the world. (Mine is a big city, but without a healthy league-gaming community.) Saying it doesn't happen because you're lucky enough to play in an environment where it hasn't happened and everyone else can go pound sand is very Marie Antoinette.

I really disagree that fast teams no longer die. I have stats from FOL for the average lifespan of a team, and the bashers last way longer than the agi teams.

What is this "lifespan" of which you speak? Number of games played is not that indicative: sometimes you get tired of rolling one die at a time, and you just want to smack stuff around. I'm hoping that I won't be able to give you a statistical sample of games with broken Orcs, that I'll turn around the rebuild before I lose even more games, but since that three-game Nuffling streak 6 weeks ago, the Wildsquigz are 0-2-2 (0-2-5 including those games), while my other teams are 33-15-13, including 10-3-5 with my other Orc team.

d) I didn't. I was VERY careful not to. I specifically said I was talking about a hypothetical you and not you personally. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully?

You were talking about people who feel the way I do, after I told you how I feel. Couch it as "carefully" as you like, it was aimed at me. I did take it personally, I still do, and I'm willing to put it aside after telling you off. There, done.

[Viajero]

Man, this is getting even better than "Claws are OP" threads!

[mattgslater]

Man, this is getting even better than "Claws are OP" threads!

Sorry, he got my goat. And I don't know how to let go. It's how I survived San Diego High, 90% gangbangers, 9% preppy nerds bussed in for the Int'l Baccalaureate program, and us 1% gamers; the scrawny or inarticulate ones (depending on the type of bully) mostly survived by hiding behind me. 20 years later, part of my psyche still hasn't learned I'm not there anymore, so when I smell a fray, I go after it like it was cheese dip, because I forget that backing down won't get me hurt. PTSD? Whatever the case, it's probably why I'm addicted to Blood Bowl: I like to get after things and hang on, but wargames are no fun because if you shoot the other guy you have to stop hitting him. Less so here.

Sorry. I'll try to catch it sooner next time.

[dode74]

Okay, fair enough. In that case, don't talk past my reply; address you concerns with it, so we can discuss.

There's more than one way to do that. For the most part we've been going down the "deconstruction" route of quoting and replying to individual points. There is also the option, which I took, to discuss a concept in the round.

you can't judge the results of your efforts by how they meet the objectives set out.

I disagree. Those objectives are one of the criteria by which you judge these things, since those objectives are the base design of the game. You certainly can't ignore them. There are other factors in creating a "great game" though, and many of those are not subject to statistical analysis. You do have to be on the lookout for, and exploit where possible, other consequences, but the initial objectives are important too. That is, of course, unless you go for a radical rethink such as that which allowed PBBL.
Orcs don't have to rebuild completely unless they have a few very bad games

The difference there is in the opinion that all teams can get knocked far off their peak.

Not really. What I'm saying is that those which get knocked far do so rarely, and those which get knocked often rarely get knocked far.

Unreliable in perpetual play translates to "loser" in my mind: if my team always does about what I expect it to do (not necessarily what I want it to do, I expect bad with my good), I usually win.

The same is true on the pitch. Fortunately it balances out nicely since the unreliable teams on the pitch (in terms of survival) are reliable long term due to being able to recover quickly and work well with journeymen, and the reliable teams on the pitch take quite a while to recover from a good beating. The lack of a bank rule actually helps those teams because the amount they can save between beatings means that they can usually replace their positionals without needing to resort to JM or mercs, improving that long term reliability.
I'm not sure what you mean by an "agile format".

Send your Orc buddies to some small, old (LRB5-wise) perpetual leagues, and they'll find themselves playing Dodge-free Amazons.

Those are not LRB 5 amazons, and are therefore hardly relevant to a discussion about LRB 5+ mechanics. The decision to grandfather teams from other LRBs (if that is what you are saying) rather than update the rosters is that of the players and the commissioners, and is a house ruling.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't lead to new, unintended consequences when you put it in practice, especially in the smaller leagues that make up the majority of TT play in little towns and far-flung places around the world. (Mine is a big city, but without a healthy league-gaming community.) Saying it doesn't happen because you're lucky enough to play in an environment where it hasn't happened and everyone else can go pound sand is very Marie Antoinette.

There is nothing wrong with those leagues adding house rules to ensure things work for them. It's encouraged because it is impossible for the rules to cover every eventuality. I'm not saying "let them eat cake" at all, I am saying "here is the cake, decorate and fill it to your satisfaction".

What is this "lifespan" of which you speak?

Number of teams of a certain race divided by number of games played by that race. It gives a good impression of how often teams are abandoned.

You were talking about people who feel the way I do, after I told you how I feel. Couch it as "carefully" as you like, it was aimed at me. I did take it personally, I still do, and I'm willing to put it aside after telling you off. There, done.

It was far from clear that it's how you feel. You said "It's very hard to have a lot of fun if your team has been killed", and that was not clear, within the context, that this was your opinion. That said, and I'm sure that this comment will get your goat (but it is my opinion and I am entitled to it), if you can't enjoy the game despite your team dying then you may be playing the wrong game. Players dying is an established and necessary game mechanic with a calculable probability of happening, which means that if you get really unlucky then yes, the entire team can die. You know full well that getting attached to players is a recipe for depression, because they all die eventually. Given that you are a lifelong BB fan I seriously doubt you actually have a problem with players dying at all, but I gather that what you don't like is the increased rate of this happening. What therefore needs to be established is what the rate should be in order for PBBL to work. The parameters of that are up for debate, but something along the lines of "an AV7 player should have AV broken X times more often per game than an AV9 one" or on a racial basis (an elf should have his armour broken X times more often per game than a BOB) might be a start point.

[spubbbba]

Which is ironic, since I'm a strictly lrb5/6 player with almost zero prior experience (apart from the old PC game, which was 3rd ed?). I just take issue with the assertion that lopsided Skaven teams are the best way to play them, are immune to player loss, and can beat everyone ever regardless of TV difference. Some team can get away with this (read: Wood Elves) because everything they have is that good out of the box, but Skaven really, really can not.

I really don’t want to get involved in the Dode and Matt mass quote argument but I think this is an important point.

Gutter runners are the skaven team, if they lose them then it is pretty much game over. The skaven are a lot like the human team except the skaven get mutation access on doubles and tend to gain MA for the loss of AV. Blitzers and throwers are about equal whilst I’d say human linemen are better and the Ogre is much more useful. It is only the difference between catchers and gutters that make the difference between being a weak and strong tier 1 team.

So I disagree that skaven are immune to losing key players. Rookie gutters are decent players but at higher TV bashers will have plenty of MB tacklers and subs to foul prone gutters. If the rats don’t have any subs then the meat shield linemen won’t last long, making it very hard to protect the gutters.

The geat advantage of elven teams is that any player can handle the ball well so even if you have a team of linemen then they are still a scoring threat.

[dode74]

I agree with you there spubbbba. Elven teams pay for that flexibility in the high cost of their players.

[otherdave]

Interesting discussion. I have a question for Matt:

Your argument seems to be that 'speed' teams have an advantage in CRP because they can play a tight-TV roster which gives them access to favorable inducements. Empirically speaking, how have these teams fared in post-season play, where Star Players and Mercenaries are forbidden?

In our local league, we've definitely had situations where otherwise successful low-TV teams were cut off at the knees by the more restrictive inducement selection during tournament play, but we're not pro enough to do much TV trimming. I was wondering what your experience was.

[mattgslater]

Interesting discussion. I have a question for Matt:

Your argument seems to be that 'speed' teams have an advantage in CRP because they can play a tight-TV roster which gives them access to favorable inducements. Empirically speaking, how have these teams fared in post-season play, where Star Players and Mercenaries are forbidden?

In our local league, we've definitely had situations where otherwise successful low-TV teams were cut off at the knees by the more restrictive inducement selection during tournament play, but we're not pro enough to do much TV trimming. I was wondering what your experience was.

Yeah, definitely Stars are a huge element of the balance. Take them out of the picture, and I could easily see Skaven suffering pretty bad if they're down more than about 250-350k. Haven't had enough tournament experience with huge handicaps to get a good sample; coaching skill variances and Nuffly goodness produce a lot of noise at the local-league elimination level. And FUMBBL allows stars in tournaments.

[otherdave]

Yeah, definitely Stars are a huge element of the balance. Take them out of the picture, and I could easily see Skaven suffering pretty bad if they're down more than about 250-350k. Haven't had enough tournament experience with huge handicaps to get a good sample; coaching skill variances and Nuffly goodness produce a lot of noise at the local-league elimination level. And FUMBBL allows stars in tournaments.

Isn't it possible then that you are overestimating the effectiveness of 'bash-inducing', low TV teams, in an environment that has house rules that significantly impact play balance? In the same way, dode may be underestimating the impact of inducements, coming from an environment that hasn't properly implemented inducements in the first place.

[dode74]

dode may be underestimating the impact of inducements, coming from an environment that hasn't properly implemented inducements in the first place.

I did look at the effect of TV difference with respect to winning both in FUMBBL and FOL. There are inducements missing on both counts, I know, so it is possible that both are slight underestimates. Either way, the aim was for the TV underdog to not have a <30% win%, and that appears to have been achieved.

[mattgslater]

Isn't it possible then that you are overestimating the effectiveness of 'bash-inducing', low TV teams, in an environment that has house rules that significantly impact play balance? In the same way, dode may be underestimating the impact of inducements, coming from an environment that hasn't properly implemented inducements in the first place.

In tournaments, yes. That's because my league isn't large enough to provide a good sample of tournament results with large disparities. Take Stars away, and the balance changes, particularly for low-TV teams. Mercenaries are usually a tactical thing, even for teams that use them: not having them in tournaments is okay, as you can spend money to build bench, and maybe some time building a key skill or two right before the tournament. So the real thing is Star Players.

Wizards are Wizards, and Skaven do get great use of Wandering Apos and Bloodweiser Babes, so gaps of up to 350k are not a big deal. But I can't vouch for all teams that way. I haven't coached Skaven in such a tournament, and the one small Rat team I faced was only 220k down, so it didn't change his decisions.

FUMBBL still hasn't implemented all the Skaven craziness, but they let stars into tournaments (except, of course, the critical one for Skaven...). This seems like it would really help Amazons, but they haven't done well anyway, despite the lack of Dwarfs (OK, there are some CDs) in FUMBBL tournaments. This doesn't surprise me (Amazons don't just peak low, they peak early), but I don't know if it's an indicator that coaches haven't caught on or that it's not working. Sample size is an issue: I don't recall seeing any small 'Zons there, mostly oversized LRB4 jobs. Elves should also be advantaged, with their good star quality.