LRB favors AG teams (Rant)

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:22 pm

At its root, the intent of aging is to keep teams from getting players with a lot of skills. This caps the growth of all teams, and makes it possible to play the game for a long period of time without having to reset the entire league because you have overpowered players that dominate the league.

I'm afraid it will never be popular because people don't like seeing rules that limit the effectiveness of their own players, but I believe that aging is a very positive thing for Blood Bowl.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:29 pm

I love the LRB. The skills are properly balanced. The teams are more balanced than ever.

I hate the aging system. I have aged so many times on the first and second skill rolls, it's no fun.Also, Now, instead of looking forwards to getting a skill roll. I'm just praying I don't age. That has taken away some of the fun for me. If we absolutely MUST have an aging system, the PLS at least make it not kick in till the third skill. Otherwise, you just have to fire rookie players or no other reason than a "in my opinion" broken game mechanism.

And let's look at that mechanism. The intent is to stop, and reduce super players. I agree with the intention. But I would FAAAAAR more prefer my players getting their injuries on field, than as a post match event.

(all this coming from an all elf coach)

Say you award fouling cases 1 SPP, look at it as a comp. Not a completed pass, but completed beating. (finishing off the job). Keep the IGMEOY ruling, and allow MB to work both on AV and Inj.

Slightly tweaking up the damage on field. (not much) Give ST teams a chance at a failry easy SPP at need. and reduce the aging table, make it a SI roll instead.

That would definatively make me more happy with the game. As it is now, I get so frustrated at the aging system, it's starting to kill some of the most enjoying parts, (gaining skill increases). At least in my book.

This doesn't sound so bad, does it? Even the most stiff necked people should be able to, if nothing else, see it as an interessting option that could deserve playtesting.

Someone could also cruch up some numbers.

Cheers, I'm getting drunk today. How about you?

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:37 pm

That's kinda my point -- maybe something is required (I'm not sure, I've never really played in those mega-long-term leagues where folks have 400+ TRs) although it seems to me that the following would work, at least from a bird's-eye view.

Give back the SPPs for fouling and pushing folks out of bounds. Return Mighty Blow to what it used to be. Remove aging. Everything else as in the LRB. Now, with the much reduced income of the LRB, expensive (read: elf) teams can't replace players nearly as fast. The rules above should slightly encourage more casualties, especially of "stars" who are obvious targets. This should, along with the reduced income, keep star players from dominating the game and TRs shooting through the roof without any need of aging, and it makes the game feel more like bloodbowl instead of the pansybowl that is has become under LRB.

These very minor tweaks seem like they should work and get rid of some needless complication, IMO. Sure, I haven't tested it yet (although I'm seriously considering recruiting for a league so I can try it out) but neither has anyone else that I know of -- the LRB is an entire system and the individual components of it (relative to, say, 3e) haven't been tested for their effectiveness or contribution to the desired goal.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:42 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:Give back the SPPs for fouling and pushing folks out of bounds. Return Mighty Blow to what it used to be. Remove aging. Everything else as in the LRB.

I can tell you at once, that if you give 2 full SP points four fouling, I'm against it, and finesse teams will become underdogs at once. Because then you suddenly make fouling a SPP income source again. With only 1 SSP on the other hand, it's not that much worth the risk, but still gives you a little benefit, and power teams that little SPP they nedd on the guys with just the 5 SPP from the MVP.

I don't think the aging system should be removed entirely, but reduced in severity, with the above tweakings up on on field damage I explained above.

As four crowd cas. I suggest allowing you to make a AV roll if you want cas, or maybe giving 1 SPP for that too. (after all, it's hardly all the playes doing)

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:49 pm

Yeah, it may need some tweaking. But, by making it only 1 SPP, you've added a needless complexity to the game -- casualties caused by blocking vs. casualties caused by something else.

Also, as I said earlier, you don't know that giving 2 SPPs for either will suddenly make AG teams into underdogs again -- my whole point is that none of those individual rules have been tested against a control group. The whole system is somewhat reactionary and has been slapped into place as a whole.

Sure, it works -- better than any other ruleset we've had so far, no doubt. But, does that mean it was well-designed and elegant? Absolutely not, it is overly complex and to my knowledge, nobody has any real idea about the effect of any one of the specific rules changes except for gut-feels.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:58 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:However, I think aging sucks. It's no fun, and it's needlessly complicated. If, as Zombie says, it's to keep AG teams in check, then they've obviously gone too far in reducing ST teams clout.

I didn't say that. Aging is to keep both types of teams in check, agility and bashing alike. A chaos warrior with 4 or 5 skills can be rather frightening as well.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:09 pm

Joshua Dyal, if you think that giving back SPPs for fouling is a "very minor tweak", you'd better think again. It would effect the whole way the game is played, and believe me, not for the better. This is one thing that should never be brought back, for any reason. The people of this forum have been clear enough on that point in the other thread. As for SPPs for pushing out of bounds, it's not a good idea either. Knocking down out of bounce, with an AV roll, ok. Pushing out of bounds, just plain no. And changing mighty blow back to its former form would have almost no effect at all.

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:18 pm

Why is that? Because "people on this forum said so?"

C'mon, you've got to do better than that! As I said, and nobody wants to address, to the best of my knowledge none of the LRB rules changes has really been tested against a control group to see what the effect of that single rule is. To say that the SPPs for fouling is such a bad thing, and then offer no evidence of it whatsoever except that "people say so" is ridiculous. That was entirely, IMO, a reactionary overcompensation.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:27 pm

When low agility players are given Dirty Player as a means to quickly gain their second skill, it is a problem. Simply put, SPP's for fouling encourages more fouling. I play Orcs, Humans and Skaven and both my Humans and Orcs usually foul at least 4 times a game. Trust me, SPP's for fouling would unbalance the game. Dirty player lets you get the really dangerous opponents off the pitch, and that's quite good enough as is.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:29 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:Why is that? Because "people on this forum said so?"

C'mon, you've got to do better than that! As I said, and nobody wants to address, to the best of my knowledge none of the LRB rules changes has really been tested against a control group to see what the effect of that single rule is. To say that the SPPs for fouling is such a bad thing, and then offer no evidence of it whatsoever except that "people say so" is ridiculous. That was entirely, IMO, a reactionary overcompensation.

The reasons have all been stated in the other thread, no need to repeat them here.

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:35 pm

Skummy wrote:When low agility players are given Dirty Player as a means to quickly gain their second skill, it is a problem. Simply put, SPP's for fouling encourages more fouling. I play Orcs, Humans and Skaven and both my Humans and Orcs usually foul at least 4 times a game. Trust me, SPP's for fouling would unbalance the game. Dirty player lets you get the really dangerous opponents off the pitch, and that's quite good enough as is.

No, you trust me, they don't!

I mean, really, if the only evidence we can come up with is anecdotal, then there's really no case against it, is there? How are you getting fouled at least four times a game without getting thrown out, anyway?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:37 pm

I suggest you go and read the other thread.

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:38 pm

Zombie wrote:The reasons have all been stated in the other thread, no need to repeat them here.

What's "the other thread?" Which other thread? And what, really, is it going to have in it that's new or revolutionary? This has been hashed out since JJ first posted IGMEOY -- what, eight, nine? years ago on the old mailing list. I really doubt anything incredibly new or revolutionary has been added to the discussion in this latest thread, unless they've done what I'd like to see and tested that rule in isolation against a control sample.

Unless that's been done, there's no convincing proof against my position, as far as I'm concerned. My experience supports my position, not discussion on an internet forum.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:41 pm

Fine be like that then.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:50 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:Unless that's been done, there's no convincing proof against my position, as far as I'm concerned. My experience supports my position, not discussion on an internet forum.

Have a look at viewtopic.php?t=5130

Lighten up and use the search facility. Its quite good.