Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again :-(

@voodoomike said:

While that's true, lets remember that at the pitch level nothing changes. If you (the general you before you start complaining about being attacked) enjoy Blood Bowl at the pitch level then saying rez will ruin the game for you is disingenuous.

It does impact the big picture though. Players who die have to be replaced and new players don't have all the skills the veteran players have earned. In addition to that injuries make it a possibility that some key players might not be available for the team in the next game, thus impacting roster for the duration of said match (it's a big deal when we talk about Dwarves who are missing Deathroller).

That's why adding rez will change things, even if you are right and nothing will change within a single game (at the pitch level). That and it'd become a no-brainer to put a particularly valuable player at risk because there would be no risk of dying or getting injured.

So here is a big difference I think everybody seems to be missing - rez is played differently from what we have now because it's different format and I am wondering if that format fits the current Ladder system.

As someone that has played both "rez" (tabletop tournaments) and "progression" (tabletop and online) it certainly does make a difference - there are times when as a rez player I will take stupid risks because, in the long-term, it doesn't matter. "So what if I dodge my Ogre into the cage on a 6 - if he fails and dies, he's just back next game." Meanwhile, my progression counterpart has to weigh up the risk of dodging the ogre compared to the risk of not having one for 3-4 games while they save up (especially in MM where there's no end goal).

I'm not saying having a rez league is a bad idea, but the "lets remember that at the pitch level nothing changes" line is completely false.

@ungern said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

First "jackasses", now "asshole", what's the next step ?!

I'm sure it'll be genocide or something. Isn't that how slippery slope arguments work?

@holy said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

That's why adding rez will change things, even if you are right and nothing will change within a single game (at the pitch level).

It changes nothing mechanical at the match level. Environment obviously affects people's play decisions - people will, for example, concede more in COL than CCL because it comes with potentially higher penalties in CCL... and people will focus more heavily on winning in CCL because there's a potential reward for a high win rate... while in COL they're more likely to focus on protecting their players because there's no long-term reward for winning, but there's a long-term penalty for team damage, etc.

@holy said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

So here is a big difference I think everybody seems to be missing - rez is played differently from what we have now because it's different format and I am wondering if that format fits the current Ladder system.

We're aiming to change the play meta in certain ways... specifically by having more people feel comfortable playing a wider range of rosters, playing with less focus on protecting their players and more on winning matches, and feeling less reluctant to risk their team (new or otherwise) in later season matches. Those are all "how we play" changes that rez has the potential to affect, too. The rules of the match, however, do not change.

@darkson said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

I'm not saying having a rez league is a bad idea, but the "lets remember that at the pitch level nothing changes" line is completely false.

As I say above, nothing mechanical changes... you guys are now focused on mindset, and that's swell, but people's mindset is different in various non-rez environments too, so we're not talking about a tangible difference, just a potential change in attitude.

@holy Real simple solution that avoids in game issues by allowing too many apothos from making them cheaper, or progression worries with rez.

Just have the option to buy healing for the injured players after the match. That way, within reason, you can pick which players you want healed.

I guess the question would be how much should be charged (I'm thinking $50k or perhaps half of the player's current cost) and if it is automatic or works like an apotho roll (leaning to auto since it doesn't affect things in match).

I think it also creates a bit of strategy too as to whether you use an apotho in game or post game (or if you even buy apothos). You could spend $100k on a random chance to heal your player, but perhaps have him for later in the game, or let him take his lumps and heal him after the game.

Thoughts?

Edit:
So to summarize:

No rez.

No change to apothos, injuries/death, or in match mechanics.

Post match option to auto heal players with gold. Cost is 1/3rd a player's current cost, with a minimum cost of $50k (only can bring back 3 players unless you keep gold past the $150k limit).

I think this is a good middle ground as instead of auto rez in a rez league there is a real cost to bring back players (gold), and it also adds a lot more strategy to both in game decisions and team building.

last edited by bonethug0108

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

Just have the option to buy healing for the injured players after the match. That way, within reason, you can pick which players you want healed.

Such a system still favours bash rather than balancing long-term attrition across the rosters. Bash suffers fewer injuries and deaths, and typically has cheaper player costs. The result would be an environment with even more incentive to play bash, and if bash is demographically dominant we'll see a focus on claw teams whose primary strength is in player removal. I hope you understand the recursive issue there.

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

I think this is a good middle ground as instead of auto rez in a rez league there is a real cost to bring back players (gold), and it also adds a lot more strategy to both in game decisions and team building.

I think it'd actually make matters worse. It'd make it easier to create and maintain heavy bash teams which, in turn, would increase the inflicted casualty rates. The teams that are currently complaining about excessive attrition would suffer even more attrition, and quickly have their treasury depleted trying to compensate for it. May as well leave it as is at that rate.

Understood. That's why I asked for thoughts to look for flaws and make a second pass.

I think maybe the biggest distinction that should be made in my suggestion is injuries vs. deaths.

In my suggestion it is far better to bring back the dead guys than to bother with the guys with injuries.

Instead of paying full price for a replacement of the dead guy, you have the option to "rez" him for a third of his cost. If anything that may be a bit unbalanced in the other way.

When looked at that way it actually balances to a degree that the injuries are a bit overpriced.

But again how many people just fire a guy with a serious injury (hell some even fire over a niggle) and buy someone new?

So I definitely get the point you are making, but in actual application it seems to me teams that take heavy casualties would still be better off under my proposal even without modifying it.

But if we want to modify it, you can set the rates and minimums at different points for different things.

MNGs cannot be fixed through gold.

Niggles would be the cheapest with the lowest minimum, followed by MA/AV, next AGI, then STR, and lastly death.

Perhaps you could even add in degrees of healing as to lessen the cost of doing it all at once.

A death can become a stat down of your choice (again with MA/AV being cheapest followed by AGI, and lastly STR; no jumping between stat downs however) for a cheaper price, a niggle for a higher price, a MNG for an even higher price, and a full heal for the highest cost.

For an example let's say you have a Wardancer who just bit it. He was level 5 with Strip Ball, Jump Up, Dauntless, and Shadowing for a value of 200k.

Dead to STR down- 50k
Dead to AGI down- 75k
Dead to MA/AV down- 100k
Dead to Niggle- 125k
Dead to MNG- 150k
Dead to fully healed- 175k

So even from dead to fully healed puts you better off than you are now of having to start over at level 1 AND paying 120k.

Dead to niggle puts you barely over the price of needing to start fresh at level 1, with the option to further heal him to full health at a later date (though perhaps some sort of limit should be put on this, and it still has to be done after a match).

If the same player were to have a niggle:

Niggle to MNG- 25k
Niggle to fully healed- 50k

So in total this is what you would pay for this player to go from dead to niggle, and then niggle to MNG: 200k (the total cost of the player). You'd save 25k doing it all at once.

Or under the current system you just have to pay 120k and start at level 1, which you still have the option of under the new system. It just gives you a choice, but still has a cost.

That's all just a quick and dirty example but please tell me if I'm overlooking something. We could discuss injury costs in a further post if this seems to be checking out to some degree.

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

We could discuss injury costs in a further post if this seems to be checking out to some degree.

It seems like an overly arbitrary way to create a much less precise version of the old "niggle system" I proposed years ago. Most of us agreed that an injury healing system would be more complex than it was worth, and that if we want to balance attrition the best way (owing to the fact that it is already used in Blood Bowl circles) would be rez, potentially with an alternative system of long-term attrition like ageing or seasons, etc.


NB: The Niggle System, since it was referenced in the body of the post.

Under the niggle system all injuries or deaths are replaced with niggles (though this is actually an optional part... they can be left as injuries and deaths, but deaths are recorded as an injury and do not automatically delete players from the roster post-match). A niggle (or injury/death) can be healed between matches for a variable cost that differs depending on the roster, and the level of the player. If using niggles, and a player ever sustains a 4th niggle, it is removed from the roster at the end of the match.

The cost to heal an injury/niggle:

cost per injury = (meanGoldPerMatch / meanInjuryRate) * (playerLevel / maxSustainableLevel)
meanInjuryRate = (mean injuries per match + mean deaths per match)
maxSustainableLevel = highest level we want all players on the team to be simultaneously while still be sustainable

We round the cost to the nearest 1000.

What this means is that under this system all rosters have the same ability to mitigate long-term attrition as all other rosters despite the fact that the rate at which long-term attrition is inflicted varies. Teams that suffer more attrition have lower healing costs, while teams that suffer less, have higher costs.

The formula ensures that those costs are appropriate to the environment, and shift as that environment and its playstyles change. We can set a maximum level of sustainable development for teams using the maxSustainableLevel variable... setting it to, say, 4 means you could feasibly have a team full of level 4 players, but if you started to push them up to level 5s, you'd start having healing costs that outpace your winnings at a rate comparable to how far past the sustainable level you took your team.

Two examples using FUMBBL CRP data:

Dwarf Roster...
MeanInjuryRate: 0.70
MeanWinnings: 49060.62
Base Cost: 70074.68 (rounded to 70,000)

Skaven Roster..
MeanInjuryRate: 1.31
MeanWinnings: 49401.43
Base Cost: 37741.30 (rounded to 38,000)

If we use MaxSustainableLevel as 4 like in our example, that makes the Dwarf costs, based on player level:

Level 1 : 18,000
Level 2: 35,000
Level 3: 53,000
Level 4: 70,000
Level 5: 88,000
Level 6: 105,000
Level 7: 123,000

By comparison, the costs for Skaven teams to heal injuries would be:

Level 1: 9,000
Level 2: 19,000
Level 3: 28,000
Level 4: 38,000
Level 5: 47,000
Level 6: 57,000
Level 7: 66,000

Despite the significantly different costs, both teams would actually be equal in their ability to handle death and injuries based on those prices. The prices are calculated automatically, and update based on, for example, the last month or three months of play data. Thus, if people start playing more conservatively to protect their players, prices go up... if they play more recklessly, prices go down, etc.

But what your system is doing is trying to make the system "fair".

I'm suggesting something far more simple that uses the same percent across the board for all races/casualty rates.

It's not trying to make the current system "fair". It's allowing the option for rez, but at an actual price.

The casualty rates in the current system already put "squishy" teams behind with money, needing to replace players far more often.

What I'm suggesting allows you to replace the dead players for a cheaper (yet still substantial) price (thus still helping teams that take more casualties moreso than those that don't, but not trying to 100% balance it), and allowing those that care about certain players they've invested in the option to keep them (for a price).

Hell we could simplify or complicate my suggestion either way into what and how you heal, but it's not going to take race/casualty rates into account. It only takes player value into account and runs off of a percent of that.

Edit:
One super simple option would be to only allow death rez (no healing injuries), and you heal them for 75% of their value (% can be tweaked but it's a good starting point), but they get the MNG designation (being they just came back from the dead and all).

My earlier post has a more complicated version.

Something in between would be death rez for 67% and healing any injury for 33% of player value (again rates are just baselines to be discussedd). This gives you more options (and has strategy behind your decisions), but also keeps the system simple and straightforward.

last edited by bonethug0108

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

It's not trying to make the current system "fair". It's allowing the option for rez, but at an actual price.

Ok, then your system serves no purpose. Rez creates balanced long-term attrition in that it removes it altogether. Anything that does not balance long-term attrition rates will only make matters worse in terms of demographics, and if it further favours bash it will increase any problems associated with attrition, not decrease it.

They won't be implementing either injury/death healing system at the end of the day, so I'm not sure how useful the discussion is. Rez is already implemented in BB2. The step between what we have and rez is small, so if anything like that is going to happen, that's almost certainly what it'll be.

The purpose is to find a middle ground between rez as is (which many people vehemently oppose, which is why it isn't allowing SSP/gold gain currently and perhaps never) and the current system.

The main complaint about rez is that it let's you build "god" teams overtime.

I'm not here to argue the merits of either side, but instead find a way to keep attrition, but still have a form of rez with a cost association.

As for the system I'm suggesting, I think I've shown that it saves "squishy" teams money over time vs. needing to buy level 1 players and starting from scratch again. So to argue what I'm proposing helps bash teams even more is 100% false.

What I suggest helps close the gap between the two extremes and allows teams that take high casualties to get back on their feet way quicker than they otherwise could under the current system.

Example:
Both a high AV and a low AV team have a player that costs 100k.

Let's say the high AV team loses that type of player once every 10 matches, and the low AV team loses their type once every 3 matches.

So under the current system the high AV team pays 100k to replace said player over 10 matches, while the low AV team pays 300k to replace theirs.

What I'm suggesting would cost the high AV team 67k per 10 games, and the low AV team 200k (assuming all lost players were level 1 for both teams to make the example quicker).

The high AV team saved 33k. The low AV team saved 100k.

Overtime this gap will increase even further. Over 30 games it saves the high AV team 100k and the low AV team 330k. Over 60 games the high AV team saves 200k and the low AV team 660k.

So over time it becomes a significant advantage to low AV teams vs. what we currently have.

On the flipside it still has a cost, so the people thaf are vehemently anti-rez may be more willing to accept this sort of system.

But like you said, neither of what we suggested is likely to be implemented, but I feel the same can be said about rez getting SPP/gold.

last edited by bonethug0108

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

The main complaint about rez is that it let's you build "god" teams overtime.

That assumes NO method of long-term attrition. BB2 already has ageing that prevents any player from existing for more than 120 games, and likely much less. The BB2016 seasons system would work well, as well.

@bonethug0108 said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

But like you said, neither of what we suggested is likely to be implemented, but I feel the same can be said about rez getting SPP/gold.

Keep in mind that both SPP and gold gain, and rez, are already implemented in BB2, while any secondary healing systems are not. I'd say we're much, much more likely to see rez with progression than any other proposed system that is not already implemented and which requires additional GUI elements.

Paying to heal injuries after still massively benefits Bash teams for the reasons said above. No Wood Elf team is floating £150k plus because they have to spend it on replacement players. Only Bash teams float loads of cash.

Fouling CLAWPOMB players to death is the best way to get even but pointless if they can then save themselves later.

I don't think it should be changed but you could consider a balance between bash and dash is better implemented through SSPs and what you get them for. Throwing the ball is almost pointless for some teams but others it might help to compensate for their bashlessness if the SSPs were more than 1. Say 2 for the thrower and 1 for the catcher.

This though is again problematic as it feeds free points in those turns where nothing is happening except a throw in the backfield.

SSPs favour killing and injuries as they are almost as valuable as TDs so teams maxing those skills that harvest SSPs for injuries out skill those that pass and score on the ladders (also because they are killing the pass score team!)

last edited by Mahwell skel

@voodoomike said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

those are popular, well-financed games because they have reached a particular demographic that has proven large enough to support it. BB2 does not appear to have access to that large a userbase given the pooling numbers.

Everything is relative. Eve is definitely not "popular, well-financed" game if compared to WoW or WoT. But it has its share of popularity exactly because it is that much different from those in how it builds game experience. If it's not for that, it would be just another generic MMORPG struggling for survival on overheated market over-shadowed by giants with immense budgets.

Each market strategy has its ups and downs. The fact that games like Eve exist just shows that this model is commercially sound. I'm not a business analytic by trade or something, but it just sounds reasonable, don't you agree?

@voodoomike said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

Plus, even if we use the examples of Lineage 2 and EVE, neither of those has the sort of unavoidable loss that Blood Bowl has. In lineage 2 you lose XP for death, but never levels... only progress toward the next level... and they've reduced the death penalty debuff over time. In EVE you can (and everyone does) buy insurance such that if your ship is destroyed you can replace it without having to rebuy it from nothing. There's no unavoidable loss like there is in Blood Bowl, and its certainly not something you can suffer because of two or three dice rolls.

Well, I can retort to this with topic starter's own words: in one of his complaints he was clearly attributing his frustration to "loss of many days of labor invested into building his team/players" (quote is not exact). Both your examples describe exactly this: by losing experience in LA2 and money spent on your ship in Eve you lose your time invested before in acquiring those assets. (btw t2, t3 and faction ships are only covered by insurance to a minor fraction of their real market cost; insurance also doesn't cover your modules (which often cost the same or even times more than the hull itself), nor implants if your capsule is blown up in addition to the ship; and btw don't forget logistics nightmare you face in Eve on regular basis, so losing your ship means a daunting travel to trade hub to assemble your new vessel and then chore of relocating it to the region where you currently operate - which sometimes mean hours of waits and a lot of actions to ensure your safety during the trip; not sure whether you say from experience, or just know about the game from some discussions, but in Eve your time invested into.. say, setting up things so you could actually start to play it finally, may seem to you much more valuable than money spent on your ships, after some time you've spent in there)

@voodoomike said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

..and yet there's really no reason to force a mandatory separation between classic and rez play in the main league.
Your inability to wrap your head around a hybrid environment doesn't make it strange. It is an incredibly simple concept that allows us to use one large league rather than forcing people to split their play between multiple leagues... while still letting the people who have an irrational hatred for rez to never play it or with it.

But for what exact reason? I hate to remind you this yet again, but once you told me about additional overheads associated with developing new features. So, we already have mechanics implementing a bunch of separate leagues, and as well we have mechanics allowing you transition your team from one to another (I believe we have at least, haven't tried this actually). So, it seem like it would be much easier (from Cyanide's developers' standpoint) to have just 2 separate leagues - Rez and non-Rez - and, if you insist, allow one-time transition of experienced teams from non-Rez to Rez leagues.

So far, the whole idea of developing the one meta-league in which you either anyway play only teams operating under the same paradigm as your team does, or play at even greater disadvantage against teams operating under Rez paradigm, seems like a convenient and a bit rigged way for you to prove your point that Rez is ultimate good, and non-Rez environments are lackluster.

There is hardly a reason why somebody would knowingly agree to do a cross-play of such kind, unless you just love to play in even more disadvantageous conditions than you usually do in BB by competing against opponents who develop in much more beneficial environment (thus can afford riskier moves without fearing consequences that much, and luxury to retain their best players no matter what happens on the pitch, maintaining an ideal dream-team, while you must work with what you've got due to additional attrition you face - to address a couple of crucial differences).

So, in the end, the only sound way to more or less equally complete each season would anyway be to conduct a 2 different playoffs and finals, for each Realm. Otherwise, you are just neatly constructed a system which pushes any coach with competitive mindset into switching to Rez, to increase their odds. And if we now have separate play-offs and finals, to boot, the only benefit of the meta-environment what is left is the ability for non-Rez team sometimes to play a game or two against a [generally] better built team in Rez part of it, for whatever reason? Does it really justify developing the whole thing?

last edited by Mori-Mori

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

Everything is relative. Eve is definitely not "popular, well-financed" game if compared to WoW or WoT. But it has its share of popularity exactly because it is that much different from those in how it builds game experience. If it's not for that, it would be just another generic MMORPG struggling for survival on overheated market over-shadowed by giants with immense budgets.

Right off the bat I can tell this post is going to be meandering hand-waving. That's like saying Best Buy isn't a big chain compared to Walmart. EVE is far more popular and better financed than 95%+ of the MMOs out there. It is monumentally larger than BB2. The problem we have here is that the playerbase is not large enough to provide the necessary pooling sizes to make the system they've chosen to use work. All the subjective comparisons in the world will not alter that fact.

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

Each market strategy has its ups and downs. The fact that games like Eve exist just shows that this model is commercially sound. I'm not a business analytic by trade or something, but it just sounds reasonable, don't you agree?

No, I wouldn't agree - that's over-generalizing. There are occasional success stories that fly in the face of common convention, but they don't disprove that convention, they stand as an example of how someone(s) made it work by finding ways to mitigate the problems that other people simply went around. Apple is another example - they got big by focusing on form over function in high tech devices, which is counterintuitive. You don't see many other companies pulling that off even though, by your logic, it shows it's a commercially sound strategy... and it is for Apple, not in general.

BB2 lacks the playerbase needed to create pool sizes large enough to make the system they've chosen to use work properly. We can throw half-assed patches at that over and over but that fact is going to remain until we change the system itself to be one that works for and is sustainable at the playerbase sizes the game has access to now, and is likely to have access to in the coming months and years.

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

Well, I can retort...

I'm sure you can, but I'll fall asleep trying to wade through all the sophistry. You have many ways to mitigate potential loss in EVE, and there are very firm caps on loss in LA2.. neither is true in BB2 beyond not playing or being willing to start over. If we look at the largest, oldest, most successful MMOs they all began with significant loss and penalties, and over time have eliminated them in response to negative feedback from their players.

If you consider BB2 to be a rousing success, having a sufficiently large playerbase to make everything work just fine, then really... we are so far apart on perception that we have nothing to talk about. If you don't, then all your arguments about how its working for other games is irrelevant because it's not working for this one.

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

But for what exact reason? I hate to remind you this yet again, but once you told me about additional overheads associated with developing new features. So, we already have mechanics implementing a bunch of separate leagues, and as well we have mechanics allowing you transition your team from one to another (I believe we have at least, haven't tried this actually). So, it seem like it would be much easier (from Cyanide's developers' standpoint) to have just 2 separate leagues - Rez and non-Rez - and, if you insist, allow one-time transition of experienced teams from non-Rez to Rez leagues.

The reason is it keeps everyone in a single potential pool for playing. People can exclude themselves if they choose to, but there is no mandatory dividing wall. Given that the issue in question boils down to pooling sizes, there's a pretty strong incentive to err on the side of inclusion.

The easiest thing for the devs to do is nothing. That's not really an argument, it's more hand-waving.

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

So far, the whole idea of developing the one meta-league in which you either anyway play only teams operating under the same paradigm as your team does, or play at even greater disadvantage against teams operating under Rez paradigm, seems like a convenient and a bit rigged way for you to prove your point that Rez is ultimate good, and non-Rez environments are lackluster.

The idea is to create a single environment to house all MM play, and allow cross-over play in order to bolster pooling sizes. If you think non-rez play will die out as a result then I suggest that'd be natural selection... besides, I thought you were all in favour of letting death and loss reign in games? Does that not extend to play paradigms? 😉

The point is simple - it creates an environment where BOTH types of play can happen. If you don't want to play rez, or with people who play rez, you can play just fine in that environment. If you do want to play a rez team, you can play there. If you like on-pitch attrition for your team, but don't much care about the other guy's team then you can play there. It's an alternative to forced division of the environments which only has one advantage amid all its disadvantage: it's less work.

The devs and publisher will decide what is or isn't too much work to be worthwhile. I'm not going to waste time arguing the mind of a third party with you.

@mori-mori said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

So, in the end, the only sound way to more or less equally complete each season would anyway be to conduct a 2 different playoffs and finals...

Oh, hey straw man... let me remind you what I already said on that topic:

@voodoomike said in Killing the fun, likely I stop playing again 😞:

It's mainly something I see for COL.. CCL could go rez but it'd have to be all rez or all non-rez, not both. People really need to stop considering those two environments as being basically the same thing.