Open question for Toby...

[Ithilkir]

What concerns me more is Chaos.. With a 35% win percentage there is a large drop off between them and anyone else, including Dwarfs.

Now the question is... Are Chaos and Dwarfs too weak or are Amazon and Woodys too strong?

[Grumbledook]

I tihnk the problem is when players get a built up chaos or dwarf team no one will play them, so most of the matches for those teams are when they are weaker, especially chaos teams who start of rather weak.

[christer]

I would like to mention that 3 low AV teams are at the top 4 of winning percentages for the FUMBBL league Christer. I realize that is short, middle, and long term combined but doesn't change the fact that the low AV teams seem to be doing good per your own data.

If you really want to show me a cool stat to support your contention. Show a games played and win/tie/loss percentage for the ALL league only (not Div X and not Stunty as these bias the sample too much) by 50 TR point increments (ie 0-99, 100-149, 150-199, 200-249, 250-299, and 300+) .... if your contention is true then we'll see that TR 200 to 249 Wood Elves have a win ratio of say 30% which is being compensated for by a win ratio of 75% at 100 to 149.

I'm willing to conceed the point if the FUMBBL data supports your contention ... just cannot pull the stat data I need to prove it one way or the other from what you have on the site right now.

By the way ... notice the MBBL doesn't have aging at all any more... ... neither does the NAF.

Galak

Sure. I'll see if I can't make a stat page like that.

However, looking blindly at numbers is not really relevant. You have to realize that FUMBBL is an open style league where teams can play whatever matches they want. Also, if a team finds itself broken down, it finds a recovery game.. This will naturally affect the results of this chart.

Bottom line is that you need to be aware of what the stats represent before you start drawing conclusions.

-- Christer

[Toby]

Galak, one year ago, I was talking about CHEATING. I was saying one must think about every cheat some fool might come up with because once the game was released the damage to its reputation would be unrepairable if thw word of mouth was "don'T play Blood Bowl online, its invested with cheaters". Example: Current Diablo2 Situation.


100% Waterproof:
Think of your own hotlist. Thats what I meant.

Balance:
A. Power
Cut Halflings and Goblins out and then its Balanced.

B. Features
Still more Ogres than Trolls...

[GalakStarscraper]

Okay so some of this is just wording ... good enough

100% Waterproof:
Think of your own hotlist. Thats what I meant.

Okay so we just disagree on waterproof. In my mind the HotList is dusting and to you its waterproofing. In my eyes, the rules are waterproof (since I define major rules abuses as not waterproof). In your definition, as long as there is a Hot List the rules are not waterproof (which means they never will be most likely).

Balance:
A. Power
Cut Halflings and Goblins out and then its Balanced.

Agreed and since every coach knows what they are in for if they run a Goblin or Halfling team ... there is no reason to remove them from the official 15. You just need to ignore them when considering game balance.

B. Features
Still more Ogres than Trolls...

I "think" this will be fixed to your satisifaction in October. Difficult to say for sure though ... the BBRC 7 are such a diverse mixed group that predicting their changes is a tricky business at best.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

I tihnk the problem is when players get a built up chaos or dwarf team no one will play them, so most of the matches for those teams are when they are weaker, especially chaos teams who start of rather weak.

I think having a handicap system would solve a lot of that. Is Ski officially waiting until this October to see what the BBRC does to the handicap system or is he planning on automating the current table before that?

And Christer 2 things:

1) Thanks if you could create that table, it would be very helpful.

2) If you create such a table I disagree that it would not be revelent data. Yes, its an open league, BUT you don't have to accept challenges so it takes two to tango which means that a lot of the abuse in the skewing of the results is eliminated. If you had a must accept challenges rule, I agree the results would be in question. I do a lot of stat work with my job and I don't really see the problem with your data if you could make the race/TR for the teams in the normal league (ie not Div X or Stunty). Even your lack of a handicap table is mitigated by such a table since it is assumed that most games will be within comparable TR since no handicap table existing. I see no problem using FUMBBL data if its refined to reflect the win/tie/loss by the TR of the race.

Galak

[Anthony_TBBF]

... neither does the NAF.

The NAF has nothing to do with rule sets.

[Mirascael]

The statistical data from fumbbl should be interpreted very cautiously.

It would be significant if games were scheduled between teams of similar TR, and even then basher-coaches might still be more interested in bashing than in winning, therby messing up the data with regard to balance.

Especially Basher-Coaches often play for the casualities almost exclusively, this explains the significant lower win percentages of teams like Chaos or Dwarves, beside the fact that, as was mentioned before, I'd only play against bashers with soft teams if they have lower TR, haven't got many damage-related skills (PO/MB/RSC/Claw/DP/Tackle) or are coached by a weaker player.

The one thing that really needs to be fixed is, in my opinion, Piling On. With a proper PO-ruling (i.e. before the armour roll) you could dare to play against basher teams more often.

Even if you win with Woodies against equalliy rated Bashers easily, there very often simply is nothing left afterwards which could be called a "team". No problem in fumbbl, just recover against lower rated teams until next time. That wouldn't be possible in a real league-environment though.

AGEING:
I'm not too certain, but I somehow got the impression that the current ageing-rule might actually hurt high-AV teams more than low-AV teams, simply because the latter team's players die/retire very frequently anyhow. I think that ageing should either be skipped entirely or be based on games played.

Low Development of Dwarves/BOBs/Sauri etc.:
Ridiculous assumption from my point of view. I tried some basher teams now and then and faced no problems to develop them as fast as Woodies just by casualities. That's at least my experience.

TRADING:
I love Star Craft, Diablo and Warcraft (though i've never been a superior player), but I don't see Toby's point why it would be absolutely imperative that coaches have to be allowed to trade players between teams. You can't do that in WC and SC either, and items in Diablo are a very different thing.
That said, I nevertheless admit, that it might be a cool feature indeed. Imagine selling players on eBay!

STUNTIES:
With 13 (!) eligible competitive races there's room enough for 2 fun races. SC has 3, WC3 has 4 races to choose from, I seriously doubt that devoted Blizzard-Players would mind if they could choose from 13 fully competitive races if there would be 2 minor ones. I actually assume they would consider it very intriguing actually.

Ogres:
Personally, I don't mind about Ogres on Dwarf/Orc/etc. rosters though they are not very fluffish on many of them. If Ogres are too strong in comparison: why not just adjust their price accordingly, so that a troll/tree/Longbeard/ becomes a serious alternative? Another alternative (fluffishly they played for almost every team according to available 2nd-edition information): Give every team (except Undead) access to Ogres but raise their cost significantly so that you don't want to acquire them automatically.
BTW: WC3 has many very unfluffish features, e.g. mercenaries. Actually, I dislike many aspects of WC3 from a fluffish point of view and consider them to be a real weakness of that game (though SC-fluffishness reaches 100% IMHO)

TOBY'S AGENDA:
There's no need for rule changes to realise your ambitious project. Everything is there already. So go ahead and don't act like you were Don Quichotte (what's the right spelling of that one?).

[christer]

Here you go:

FUMBBL Race development statistics.

I won't comment it at this point and let you draw your own conclusions. I still say you need to consider what the data represents before you come to any conclusions. Also note that some values have too little underlying data to be relevant.

-- Christer

[Toby]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute....
there is a very subtile difference to what I say; I don't say: Blood Bowl Team Reaces Balance is completely broken and I know how to fix it;

I say for an example, assuming that:
A a retail Blood Bowl game would be released, and within 8 weeks it would prove that Wood Elves cannot survive in Tournament play.

That would make Wood Elves disapear extremly quickly from online play. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS LIKE THAT.
I say if something like that happend and was not adressed before the release of the PC game, it would hurt the games reputation, and scare of veteran online strategy players.


Player Trades and completely NEW features:

I do not say: unles those features are not implemented, Blood Bowl is boring.

I say: Coaches will come up demanding such features. Now would be the time to think about implementing them in a way thats not easily to be abused.

Reference to...
Warcraft: Heroes (Starplayers)
Diablo: Trading Items (Players)
Starcraft: On the contrary to "boring" Role Playing Games Starcraft Players use the internet to find human OPPONENTS for COMPETITIVE play !!!

[GalakStarscraper]

Here you go:

FUMBBL Race development statistics.

I won't comment it at this point and let you draw your own conclusions. I still say you need to consider what the data represents before you come to any conclusions. Also note that some values have too little underlying data to be relevant.

-- Christer

Thanks Christer ... that was very informative. I will really watch this page in the future for your stats. I'll also send the link to the BBRC so they can watch it also as the numbers build. I don't see too much that screams problem ... but this is definitely a VERY helpful stats page (at least to me) .... thanks for taking the time to add this Christer.

Galak

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Especially Basher-Coaches often play for the casualities almost exclusively, this explains the significant lower win percentages of teams like Chaos or Dwarves, beside the fact that, as was mentioned before, I'd only play against bashers with soft teams if they have lower TR, haven't got many damage-related skills (PO/MB/RSC/Claw/DP/Tackle) or are coached by a weaker player.

But that doesn't explain how low AV teams are at the top. If the basher teams are only about casualties then why are the AV 7 players still living and scoring TD's? It also doesn't explain why Undead are #3? Undead are a bashing team...why do they win so often? Also you mention the significantly lower win% of Chaos Dwarfs but they are in the top 6! And they are above Dark Elves! You also don't have a reason why Humans are in the bottom end.
You're are just throwing out speculations based on a quick glance at the data. Your observayions don't hold up under closer scrutiny.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Also both sets of data show dwarf teams as having one of the lowest win% at all TR ranges...but they are still perceived as a threat.
Bunch of dwarf haters.

[Mirascael]

But that doesn't explain how low AV teams are at the top. If the basher teams are only about casualties then why are the AV 7 players still living and scoring TD's? It also doesn't explain why Undead are #3? Undead are a bashing team...why do they win so often? Also you mention the significantly lower win% of Chaos Dwarfs but they are in the top 6! And they are above Dark Elves! You also don't have a reason why Humans are in the bottom end.

Dark Lord, by no means can you draw conclusions from these statistical data for RL-leagues. That's simply naive.

You're are just throwing out speculations based on a quick glance at the data. Your observayions don't hold up under closer scrutiny.

I've played about 200 games online now. It's entirely different to RL-BB from a balance-orientated point of view. There's not even a handycap-system inplemented yet.

[Mirascael]

Also both sets of data show dwarf teams as having one of the lowest win% at all TR ranges...but they are still perceived as a threat.
Bunch of dwarf haters.

Playing against Dwarves would jeopardize the integrity of my teams (Woodies). So I just deny to play against them (unless the involved risk is acceptable).