The Injury-Heal System

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby VoodooMike » 03 November 2013, 09:18

You need to work on your sense of persecution
I don't feel persecuted, I'm simply noting that lately you're so focused on the minutiae that you're oblivious to the big picture - you're not just missing the forest for the trees, you're so busy chewing on the leaves you haven't noticed you're sitting in one. I pointed out a much larger, more obvious thing to focus on to demonstrate this fact.
I am actually open-minded about this system for open league play, although I do have reservations about the transition from open leagues to scheduled leagues with CRP injuries.
Then you'd simply make entry into your scheduled league require a team originate from an open league that did not use the injury-heal system. I don't personally see an issue either way, since the only real objection would be that teams from certain environments would develop more quickly and with less bumps on the road... you could still get to the same place in any of those environments, it'd just take longer in one with more random fluctuations in team composition. To each their own.
I'm asking questions about a system which would make "no change to on-pitch attrition". There are changes, but now you're saying they won't be statistically significant (based on what evidence? Or is that just conjecture?) or that other changes will balance them out (again, based on what evidence?).
Based on pretty basic logic. The limited number of apothecaries that a team can field on a given match combined with the objective rarity of casualties as demonstrated by existing match statistics make it very unlikely that the minor shifts (16% better chance of getting a BH result, for example, though as I say, it's not integral to the system and can be shifted down) creating a statistically significant shift in any of the numbers we see in the data. Let me counter your question with one of my own: what do you imagine you'd see as a difference in terms of the data... or are you just waving your hands around saying "there will be a change wooOOOooOOOOOOOooooo prove me wrong woooOOoooOOooo!"?

When it comes to future events we can only guess, but not all guesses are created equal - some are better educated than others. In each case, even the more significant one that I pointed out, the actual change is in the potential choices that coaches may make given the fact that the attrition system is lightened, not in core mechanics of the game. Environmental changes always result in variable, but environmentally influenced choices: people choose to play bash in open MM, people choose to avoid playing against bash in R, people choose to play teams that are better at winning matches when there is actually something to be won. When bash is prevalent, people focus on bash-related skills... when bash is low in prevalence people focus on scoring skills. These affect "on pitch" play, but not because there is a core difference in the rules.
You're asking people to drink the kool-aid, and I'm being castigated for asking about the taste.
No, you're being castigated because while you're pretending this is about data, this is really just innuendo - you don't have the foggiest clue what sort of change you'd be looking for in the data, but you don't care about that, you just want to suggest that there's a potential difference and then demand proof that the potential won't be a big deal in some nebulous, unspecified way. Get specific and I'll give you specific answers, but the hand waving from you in recent threads has become tiresome. It'll end up being another thread I don't even bother to read until yours isn't the "last poster" name.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby dode74 » 03 November 2013, 11:39

lately you're so focused on the minutiae that you're oblivious to the big picture
I think we just disagree about what actually matters. You claim objectivity but are unwilling/unable to objectively define what the game actually is. My preference is other than this system because I think it sterilizes the game, turning it into something far from TT and removing a good part of the mayhem which the game is all about. That's different to saying it won't work: I just wouldn't play it.
Then you'd simply make entry into your scheduled league require a team originate from an open league that did not use the injury-heal system
I'm not talking about teams but about players. People new to the game enter in an open league with this system then think "ooh, I'll try a scheduled league". Suddenly they discover a very different metagame, and that can be off-putting even if they might end up actually enjoying the league more.
Based on pretty basic logic.
Basic is right: you're guessing it'll be "about the same".
the objective rarity of casualties as demonstrated by existing match statistics
And there I was thinking that it was the regularity of casualties which you thought was driving people away. What does "objectively rare" mean, anyway?
what do you imagine you'd see as a difference in terms of the data
I already said above. The lack of use of the Apo on the career-ending injury of a star or favourite player will see the Apo used more on BH rather than those injuries. This will result in more players on-pitch for any given game.
These affect "on pitch" play, but not because there is a core difference in the rules.
Yeah, thanks for reiterating something we've agreed on multiple times already.
you don't have the foggiest clue what sort of change you'd be looking for in the data, but you don't care about that,
On the contrary, I've been very specific. If there is to be no change to on-pitch attrition I am asking how your system manages that given that there are changes to what happens on the pitch. You're saying "well it all balances out in the end". Not only is that hand-waving guesswork on your part, it's disingenuous of you to accuse me of the same thing when it's the very basis of your argument.
Image

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby VoodooMike » 03 November 2013, 18:26

You claim objectivity but are unwilling/unable to objectively define what the game actually is.
This again, seriously? I honestly don't know how you can read that question without realizing how ridiculously stupid and useless it is, yet you keep dragging it out like some sort of brain-dead theist who won't move past the begged question "...but who made sunsets?".
My preference is other than this system because I think it sterilizes the game, turning it into something far from TT and removing a good part of the mayhem which the game is all about. That's different to saying it won't work: I just wouldn't play it.
Oh I got that from you already... but what you WILL do is yammer on at length about it and try to derail every topic about things that don't suit your preference rather than simply excusing yourself from them. If you could actually make your contributions useful or intellectually stimulating then I wouldn't care, but as of late it's just bullshit nitpicking in which you wave away the overarching points and try to shift all the focus onto something small, declaring your pissant little issues to be mountains, but failing to even present a possible measure for exploring the ideas other than interpretive dance.
I'm not talking about teams but about players. People new to the game enter in an open league with this system then think "ooh, I'll try a scheduled league". Suddenly they discover a very different metagame, and that can be off-putting even if they might end up actually enjoying the league more.
The injury system differences are considerably smaller than the differences in the match frequency, development strategies, and team career focus between open play and league. I have a feeling that if a coach can cope with the latter, he can probably cope with the former, especially since scheduled leagues tend not to suffer from the same issues that the IH system is trying to handle in open play.
Basic is right: you're guessing it'll be "about the same".
Yep, I am, based on the reasons I stated. Do you have reasons to believe otherwise? Do you even have a metric by which you'd recognize the differences in the first place? No? I'd say my assumption is considerably less candy-assed than asking for "evidence" of future events, unless you have a time machine handy.
And there I was thinking that it was the regularity of casualties which you thought was driving people away. What does "objectively rare" mean, anyway?
Yeah, I'm not surprised you didn't "get it"... you rarely do these days (or rarely admit to it when you do). It isn't how frequently serious injuries and death happen that makes people quit, its the sudden and unavoidable loss of key players that drives people away - it's what makes BB a punishing game rather than simply a difficult game. The subjective frequency of injuries is what makes people complain about CPOMB, but the actual frequency of the deaths and serious injuries is pretty small. The subjective frequency of injuries is what creates the attrition imbalance between rosters because it does, in the long run, have an effect on the environment.

If you still don't get it, try it this way: objectively rare means that the number of expected casualties of a serious nature (death and stat loss) per match is very low, so the change in those numbers would have to be more pronounced in order to find a statistically significant difference. Given that the scenarios you've presented represent potential effects that aren't even guaranteed to express themselves when the dice come out exactly the necessary way... it is very unlikely you'll be able to find a statistical effect when comparing data from pre-IH and post-IH environments.
I already said above. The lack of use of the Apo on the career-ending injury of a star or favourite player will see the Apo used more on BH rather than those injuries. This will result in more players on-pitch for any given game.
You have data on the current state of that to do a pre and post comparison, do you? Again, how often do "favourite players" sustain career-ending injuries? I'll even take a wild guess on your part for that question. Given the infrequency with which that happens (or we'd never manage to build favourite players in the first place) the chances of different decisions in that scenario having a statistically significant effect on the environment is very unlikely, even assuming people all shifted their choice the way you're suggesting, which is very unlikely since doing so violates your own statement that the environment is based more on development than winning matches, and of the two choices "preventing an injury to a high level player" vs "getting a player back on the pitch assuredly for this match" the former is the development-focused choice.
Yeah, thanks for reiterating something we've agreed on multiple times already.
We agree on this? If so then maybe it doesn't mean what you think it does since you keep nitpicking in opposition to it.
On the contrary, I've been very specific. If there is to be no change to on-pitch attrition I am asking how your system manages that given that there are changes to what happens on the pitch. You're saying "well it all balances out in the end". Not only is that hand-waving guesswork on your part, it's disingenuous of you to accuse me of the same thing when it's the very basis of your argument.
When I say no change to on-pitch attrition I'm quite obviously saying that there's no mechanical change. Do you know why I say it's obvious? Because every person with a pulse agrees that the environment will colour the choices a coach makes about both on-pitch actions and off-pitch development... because we all see it happen in every one of the environments that exist. Since we ALL KNOW that we ALL KNOW this, trying to make an issue about how coaches may make different decisions under this new environment as being contradictory to the statement I made is you being an obtuse tool who is trying to nitpick about wording.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby Koadah » 03 November 2013, 19:58

Sounds like a decent enough system for people who like that kind of thing. But...
And there I was thinking that it was the regularity of casualties which you thought was driving people away. What does "objectively rare" mean, anyway?
Yeah, I'm not surprised you didn't "get it"... you rarely do these days (or rarely admit to it when you do). It isn't how frequently serious injuries and death happen that makes people quit, its the sudden and unavoidable loss of key players that drives people away - it's what makes BB a punishing game rather than simply a difficult game. The subjective frequency of injuries is what makes people complain about CPOMB, but the actual frequency of the deaths and serious injuries is pretty small. The subjective frequency of injuries is what creates the attrition imbalance between rosters because it does, in the long run, have an effect on the environment.
This is where you lose the Luddite old fogies.

This game is at least part sports simulation. In sports, games and seasons turn on injuries and suspensions. This is blood bowl. So injuries should be worse than say, the NFL. Come on. We have claws and chainsaws!
But it seems to me that the majority of NFL talk seems to centre around who will be fit to play and who won't. Who is done for the season, and how soon people will be able to return.

If you are relying heavily on say, Peyton Manning and he goes down for the season? Well yeah, you're looking 1-15 in the face.

So. Don't expect much sympathy from the fogies for people who cannot handle "sudden and unavoidable loss of key players".
So, for me it is all about the frequency and severity of injuries.

OK. So you have avoided changing the 'in game mechanics' but it seems to me to be a pretty big change to the spirit of the game. I agree with Dode that moving to the 'proper' rules could be a nasty shock for people who started with these rules.
CaRBB

hermanJnr.
Posts: 264
Joined: 18 August 2011, 09:40

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby hermanJnr. » 03 November 2013, 20:23

This sounds like a fairly well balanced proposal. I particularly like that it hands more control to the player regarding keeping their stars in the game (and alive!) and also gives teams more potential to maintain their momentum...as opposed to the swing teams often experience from having loads of star players to suddenly having a bunch dead/maimed and having a talent void for a long time.

However...I don't like the removal of death (it was removed, right? I didn't see any mention of it, I apologise if I overlooked it).

To me this is a game where you have the potential to have a chainsaw or freaking spike-filled steamroller on the pitch. Players getting horribly killed is mentioned humourously all the way through the flavour text. To say "Oh, you got run over by a 15 ton steamroller and 6 Dwarves kicked you in the head simultaneously, you thus have X chance of having a sprained hamstring only" seems a bit silly, not to mention rather boring.

I'd say implement the changes you suggest with perhaps a slight decrease in the "niggling" effect of the new injuries, but also add in the same chance of death as we currently have. With Apothecaries/Regen, death is not a huge concern as it is already unless you're ridiculously careless with your players. If you said that every 2 injuries gives a +1 to injury, getting injuries would not be an instant death sentence next game.

It'd also stop teams from simply spending their entire treasury to constantly keep a Frenzy, MB, PO, Claw, Block, Tackle etc. etc. player alive and well for 300 games while letting everyone else on the team accumulate injuries....becaue that's exactly what lots of min/maxers would want to do.
Formerly on the boards as "NinjaGammaMan".

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby dode74 » 03 November 2013, 20:40

I honestly don't know how you can read that question...
I honestly don't know how you can keep stating objectivity while not accepting (or, more likely, avoiding) that the concept of what the game is is itself subjective.
what you WILL do is yammer on at length about it and try to derail every topic about things that don't suit your preference rather than simply excusing yourself from them
I've made legitimate concerns about the system itself, separate to my preference for it, in this thread. You have retorted with nothing but abuse, which is, I suspect, because you don't have the answers and are simply armwaving away the criticism. You don't get to say who does and does not take part in threads.
The injury system differences are considerably smaller than the differences in the match frequency, development strategies, and team career focus between open play and league.
I suspect coaches will expect the in-game rules to pretty well carry across to scheduled leagues.
Yep, I am
Good, you admit you're guessing. Armwaving it is, then.
It isn't how frequently serious injuries and death happen that makes people quit, its the sudden and unavoidable loss of key players that drives people away - it's what makes BB a punishing game rather than simply a difficult game.
It's also what makes the game what it is for a lot of us. As koadah says, this is a sports sim set in a fantasy setting; it's not an RPG.
objectively rare means that the number of expected casualties of a serious nature (death and stat loss) per match is very low
Low compared to what? I thought the problem was that they are too high. The "sudden and unavoidable loss of key players" is part of the game.
of the two choices "preventing an injury to a high level player" vs "getting a player back on the pitch assuredly for this match" the former is the development-focused choice.
Of course it is, which is why it happens. Under your system very few of those injuries would be career ending: you could simply get him healed between games. This means that you could effectively ignore such injuries (as they will have no knock-on effect) in favour of the BHs which occur.
When I say no change to on-pitch attrition I'm quite obviously saying that there's no mechanical change.
So you are proposing a change in the rate of on-pitch attrition. My understanding was that you were proposing no change to on-pitch events (attrition, effectiveness etc), but a change to between-game events such that on-pitch had no knock-on effect. I suspect a lot of other people think the same, but I will let them speak for themselves.

In all honesty, and despite your rather amusing rants, I don't think it's a bad system for MM. I do have an issue with changing the rate of on-pitch attrition (there is nothing to suggest that rate needs changing), and am slightly concerned with the assumption that teams should be clean at the soft-TV cap (how does that compare with current teams?). I also agree with hermanJnr that there needs to be some means of removing those high-value players from the team so that they aren't simply kept as the "pet player" throughout the team. Perhaps an adjustment to the cost of healing based on skill rolls rather than player level would help with that, meaning that it costs more to save your +ST player than it does your Block player, such that:
Cost to Heal 1 Injury = (TV of skills taken by player) x (Roster Heal Cost) x (*Adjustment Factor)
Another alternative (or additive) would be to increase the cost of healing a player depending on how many times he has been injured before.
Image

A-r-c-h-o-n
Posts: 165
Joined: 05 December 2009, 11:33

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby A-r-c-h-o-n » 05 November 2013, 10:54

Thinking about that system I have a couple of questions (which may come from me not understanding it correct). I think it could impact the on-the-pitch game severely.

If I know, that the adjustment factor is based on my own team, I would be less inclined to take defensive skills like fend or dodge. These skills help a player to stay alive, but if i can "just heal" anyone at a specific cost - and that price goes up for taking a defensive skill - why should i take it?

My first conclusion would be, that basing that new factor on the current team is not a good idea, because it would impact the "skill-value" of the skills. Basing it on the overall race on the other hand would help (for that regard). Would it be possible to base it on that special player-type?

And now the classic question "cui bono". IMHO races who have few very important players and a lot of fodder would get a major boost. Vamps and necros for example. The fodder "suck" the injuries up and the positional-players become unstoppable legends. And teams would benefit, that come with good skills right of the box. A Pro-elf catcher really doesn't need a single level to be effective right of the box (and can "suck" injuries), while helping the coach to save money for his valuable throwers and other players.

So - wouldn't that system boost vamps to tier 1, while condemning for example chaos (who really needs all players to be developed) to become less competitive?

User avatar
Colonel Panic
Posts: 798
Joined: 13 September 2011, 12:00

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby Colonel Panic » 05 November 2013, 12:05

Extrapolating "Injuries per Game" from Casualties per game" is also problematic for stunty-heavy teams and for teams with lots of Regeneration.

Take Undead, for example. All of their players except Ghouls regenerate, and since regenerating currently "fixes" stat injuries if successful, you'd have to assume that it also "fixes" these injuries. So about half of the casualties that these teams take get regenerated. They still count as casualties for the "casualties taken per game" stat, but don't give permanent injuries. So undead should pay about twice as much to heal injuries as other teams with similar casualty-per-game records. BUT! Ghouls don't regenerate and are often heavily targeted. They are also low armor. It's not trivial to figure out what portion of Undead casualties are to ghouls, I'm not sure specific stats like that are available.

Stunties have a similar problem. The Stunty skill changes the injury table, making 9 an automatic "Badly Hurt" result, with no risk of a permanent injury. This counts as a casualty, but it means that stunty-heavy teams also have disproportionately low rates of permanent injury for their cas-taken-per-game stats. It becomes even harder for mixed stunty/nonstunty teams, like Lizardmen or Underworld.

Also, I am assuming that Decay continues to work the way it always has, giving two casualty rolls, and risking two permanent injuries per cas. But this makes it problematic to calculate injuries-per-game for teams like Khemri and Nurgle - especially because those teams also have players who regenerate.

We would get these numbers eventually if we played a lot of injury-heal games and explicitly tracked injuries taken per team - but we need those numbers in order to play! I can think of a couple workarounds, but they kind of feel clunky:
- Treat all players the same regardless of skills, meaning: Regeneration does not fix a permanent injury. If your regen player takes an Injury and regenerates, he returns to the reserves box but keeps the injury. Also, any casualty gets a roll on the casualty table, even a '9' casualty to a Stunty.
- Adjust cost per player based on skills: Meaning, players with Regenerate pay double to get healed, players with Decay get a discount.

This can work, it's just something that would need to be figured out before starting to play.

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby VoodooMike » 05 November 2013, 16:01

If I know, that the adjustment factor is based on my own team, I would be less inclined to take defensive skills like fend or dodge. These skills help a player to stay alive, but if i can "just heal" anyone at a specific cost - and that price goes up for taking a defensive skill - why should i take it?
I think you might have the wrong idea about the adjustment factor. The adjustment factor is based on the level of the specific player involved compared to the average player level on the team - because of that there's really no reason you would skip defensive skills over anything else. The cost to heal is the base cost multiplied by the level of the player you're healing, multiplied by that adjustment player that depends on the average team level compared to that player. That means that you get a discount on healing brand new/low level players on your well developed team, but no discount for healing a level 1 player on a team full of level 1 players... it also means if you have a team full of level 1 players, and one level 6 star, the cost to heal that star is going to be extremely high - possibly too high to sustain compared to the amount you're making per match. You'd certainly take defensive skills if that were the case.

The other thing it looks like you might be suggesting is someone might just not increase their player's "value" since that also increases the cost... you can't really avoid increasing in level. You gain SPPs if you use a player for anything important, and you can't not level the player up when he reaches the required SPP point. There's no way to avoid at least taking a skill at that point.
And now the classic question "cui bono". IMHO races who have few very important players and a lot of fodder would get a major boost. Vamps and necros for example. The fodder "suck" the injuries up and the positional-players become unstoppable legends. And teams would benefit, that come with good skills right of the box. A Pro-elf catcher really doesn't need a single level to be effective right of the box (and can "suck" injuries), while helping the coach to save money for his valuable throwers and other players.
Heh, that's actually three different things! First, its not really a boost to fodder teams - they're not more effective under IH, they're simply less likely to need to be replaced suddenly... which is not itself much of an advantage to teams that don't care about losing those players in the first place. Second, the only way to create unstoppable legends is to protect them, since the cost of healing the injuries to them would, in time, become very, very high owing to the adjustment factor. Third, the system doesn't really make teams that are successful using low level players any more successful than they already are: a team full of level 2 amazon linewomen with Block would still slaughter other teams of their TV, just like they do now... but likewise, they're never particularly worried about losing a player anyway since it takes 2 minutes to build another one.
So - wouldn't that system boost vamps to tier 1, while condemning for example chaos (who really needs all players to be developed) to become less competitive?
I doubt it. What it would do is make it harder on people who engage in what I'll call "soft minmaxing" which is to say they tend to favour a small number of key players and treat all other players as field filler, specifically because it gets increasingly expensive to upkeep players of high levels, and if you're focused on using those players they're likely the ones that will sustain at least some of the regularly sustained injuries.
Extrapolating "Injuries per Game" from Casualties per game" is also problematic for stunty-heavy teams and for teams with lots of Regeneration.
This is why we'd need to base values on what sticks, not just on what is rolled and then rerolled or nullified in some way. FUMBBL's box data had itemized casualty data rather than just a number of casualties, if I recall correctly, which is what I calculated the original values for in the original thread. Now, whether regenerated or apo'd things were included in that or not I do not know... if this system were ever implemented it would certainly call for the specific data related to unavoided injuries which anyone who was actually in a position to implement it would, we assume, have access to or be able to begin tracking.
You don't get to say who does and does not take part in threads.
Nor would I block or alter people's postings if I could. I do, however, control whom I reply to. The level of your discussion has become intolerably stupid in the last month or so, for whatever reasons (problems at work, home, whatever) and while I've never thought very highly of you as a person, you used to have actual points that were beyond just looking for any little thing you thought you could frame as a issue and beyond trying to derail threads you weren't able to deal with in order to continue posting to them despite having nothing of value to bring to the discussion. Pending you getting your life in order, I'm just going to ignore your posts henceforth.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: The Injury-Heal System

Postby dode74 » 05 November 2013, 16:32

That is a sad and cowardly way for you to bow out of an exchange, Mike, particularly after my last post which contained several "actual points".

Enjoy your pontificating while fearing actual criticism... :roll:
Image


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron