Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Mako

      Scholar's Guild Forum Challenge   06/26/2017

      There's a new contest running through July, to write a 1000 word short story about a rookie For more details, head to the Tales of Infamy section down below. Happy writings!  
Bertmac

Is scoring goals too easy.

150 posts in this topic
Just now, rozyncrantz said:

Generally by:

A- placing the ball in a spot that is very hard for your opponent to get at it and do something (e.g., boot it off into a corner behind your wall of brawlers)

or

B- keeping it on a model that it is egregiously difficult to get it away from (e.g., Scum or Snakeskin), preferably off somewhere hard to get to

The point is to deny the ball as a resource for your opponent, forcing them to either slug it out or expend massive resources to obtain the ball.

I think the other thing that makes "killing the ball" what it is would be that neither player gets to use it really. It's just set somewhere, or at most moves once a turn when the opposing strikers get too close. I think what people complain about when they complain about killing the ball is not that their opponent has the ball, but that the ball isn't really in the game. 

Napoleon and rozyncrantz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slothrop said:

I think the other thing that makes "killing the ball" what it is would be that neither player gets to use it really. It's just set somewhere, or at most moves once a turn when the opposing strikers get too close. I think what people complain about when they complain about killing the ball is not that their opponent has the ball, but that the ball isn't really in the game. 

Yes, that's definitely the issue. I was just responding to the mechanical question; the part I forgot to add is that while killing the ball you never actually go score with it unless it's the closing goal, because then your opponent has the opportunity to have the ball.

Slothrop likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not give bonus influence for every four victory points instead of just for goals? 

That way everyone gets more to do at the same amount of points. 

Also make a union goalkeeper that works for all factions. So teams can have at minimum one goalkeeper if they chose. Or create goalkeepers for every guild to keep that union slot available. 

Skinnydookie likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul7926 said:

I shouldn't comment because I'm a total noob with a sum total of zero experience.  I'm also old and what I 'should' or 'shouldn't' do are fast becoming loose guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. :)

I have to say that knowing nothing of the game I assumed intercepting a pass was more interactive than it actually appears to be.  It appears to be a negative modifier on the chance of a successful pass but doesn't really feel like an interception.  I have no idea if the following suggestion makes sense or even how it would affect game play but I'm sure more experienced people will be able to see the flaws.

How about if the ball position of a failed shot was randomised from the base of the opposition player than was standing in the path of the shot.  Representing them getting a body part, weapon on the ball and disrupting it's path. It would add some randomisation to final ball placement but the randomisation would have it's point of origin as the opposition player meaning that a low roll on the distance dice would allow them to 'snap to' and really intercept the ball.

I know it does nothing to make scoring mathematically harder which was the point of the thread but it does potentially make it more risky to shoot past a player.  That might be enough to mean that a player would potentially have to move further to avoid interceptions and make the goal run harder because of that.  

SecondEdit:

I'd also suggest that the kick scatter template not be placed in the traditional manner (ie facing the forward path of the ball) but rotated 90 degrees so that it is pointing perpendicular to the path of the ball.  It's difficult for me to express in words but I feel it should hav ethe chance to bounce away from the interceptor model but possibly back towards the shooter.

I dunno.  Like I say I'm in no position to comment really but hey.  

 

A chance to actually intercept a la Bloodbowl would be nice; would put more empahsis on positing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Melos said:

Why not give bonus influence for every four victory points instead of just for goals? 

That way everyone gets more to do at the same amount of points. 

Also make a union goalkeeper that works for all factions. So teams can have at minimum one goalkeeper if they chose. Or create goalkeepers for every guild to keep that union slot available. 

I like the first idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Melos said:

Why not give bonus influence for every four victory points instead of just for goals? 

That way everyone gets more to do at the same amount of points. 

I suspect the reason this isn't done is because Killy teams already (arguably) get an Influence advantage over Bally teams by dint of TOs. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that this rule was originally added to the game to bring Bally teams to rough influence parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After much deliberation and inner raging at many of the suggestions here, I really think the answer to this scoring issue is 'git gud'. The ball is a resource. Control it better. I am of the apparently radical opinion that goal scoring is ok atm, and that players should instead focus on denying ball control to their opponents in a strategic fashion. Do all guilds have the option to successfully do this to the same extent? That is another question entirely.

Sidepoint:

I think the actual issue with pace is not really that scoring goals is easier, but that 6 takeout games (ie. the ones that often follow from a ball killing strategy) are slow, often undynamic grinding affairs that destroy your soul. The Icy Sponge and Mascot VP changes were both pretty hard blows to the takeout game. The Mascot changes overall I quite like (ie. multiple mascots in a roster is a viable choice for many teams -> more meaningful choices = more van value).  I'm so-so on the Icy Sponge changes, especially with a player like Shank  that excels at controlling the wings and forcing that choice getting nerfed on top of that. 

I recall a statement from Mat early in Season 3 that getting 6 takeouts is now as hard as getting 3 goals. That might be true, I dunno. But it's way more interesting to get 3 goals than to get 6 takeouts. Even the killiest teams tend to aim for 4 takeout, 1 goal these days. Is that a problem, or working as intended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought on intercepting kicks here. I'm not sure if someone suggested this already but I think there could be a place for intercept mimicing a counter attack. Something like this:

Models in the ball path could spend momentum to roll dice equal to their kick value. If succesful (or like 2 successes? dunno) the model may gain the possession of the ball. And maybe if another momentum is spent now the model could immediately perform a pass.

I think this would make things more interesting, or something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JS said:

After much deliberation and inner raging at many of the suggestions here, I really think the answer to this scoring issue is 'git gud'. The ball is a resource. Control it better. I am of the apparently radical opinion that goal scoring is ok atm, and that players should instead focus on denying ball control to their opponents in a strategic fashion. Do all guilds have the option to successfully do this to the same extent? That is another question entirely.

Sidepoint:

I think the actual issue with pace is not really that scoring goals is easier, but that 6 takeout games (ie. the ones that often follow from a ball killing strategy) are slow, often undynamic grinding affairs that destroy your soul. The Icy Sponge and Mascot VP changes were both pretty hard blows to the takeout game. The Mascot changes overall I quite like (ie. multiple mascots in a roster is a viable choice for many teams -> more meaningful choices = more van value).  I'm so-so on the Icy Sponge changes, especially with a player like Shank  that excels at controlling the wings and forcing that choice getting nerfed on top of that. 

I recall a statement from Mat early in Season 3 that getting 6 takeouts is now as hard as getting 3 goals. That might be true, I dunno. But it's way more interesting to get 3 goals than to get 6 takeouts. Even the killiest teams tend to aim for 4 takeout, 1 goal these days. Is that a problem, or working as intended?

"Git gud" and "controll the ball better" how does one do that when my opponent runs the ball into a corner with Snakeskin, etc? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RTOAHB said:

"Git gud" and "controll the ball better" how does one do that when my opponent runs the ball into a corner with Snakeskin, etc? 

Take Stave and push her off the table

2 ez

Fujin and PaW like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stave finding his niche in life. Honestly though it doesn't matter what player is in the corner. Either fight the 6 v 5 or just dedicate a player to get it off snakeskin at the start of the turn. Or end, not as if they have influence to spare in a 6v5 to clone n nimble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JS said:

After much deliberation and inner raging at many of the suggestions here, I really think the answer to this scoring issue is 'git gud'. The ball is a resource. Control it better. I am of the apparently radical opinion that goal scoring is ok atm, and that players should instead focus on denying ball control to their opponents in a strategic fashion. Do all guilds have the option to successfully do this to the same extent? That is another question entirely.

Sidepoint (snipped)

I recall a statement from Mat early in Season 3 that getting 6 takeouts is now as hard as getting 3 goals. That might be true, I dunno. But it's way more interesting to get 3 goals than to get 6 takeouts. Even the killiest teams tend to aim for 4 takeout, 1 goal these days. Is that a problem, or working as intended?

I think you've missed the point, mate. To often when these types of discussion come up this proposition is put forward, but it oversimplifies the problem into one of winning or losing.

Maybe for some people this is indeed the sole purpose of the reason they play games such as guild ball, but I suspect for most of us (certainly for myself) I play the game to have fun. Some of the best games I've had have been ones I've lost, some of the worst have been ones I've won. 

Yes, there may be a problem with goalscoring and the overall balance of the game, but I think overall this is a very minor issue and the stats show that the problem is at worst no worse than Fillet was in Season 2, and probably not quite as bad. (Stats for S2 dates Show Butchers at 57% win rate with Union 2nd place at 50%, S3 dates show Alchemists also at 57%, Fish at 55% and Union 3rd on 49%, but on Ranking Points/game Butchers were 62 and Alchemists 61, so very similar range of figures).

The real problem with goalscoring, for me at least, isn't particularly an issue of balance, it's an issue of enjoyment. Of the games I've had in S3, the games where I've played against someone willing to come at me and fight me (even against Shark teams that have been using players like Jac and Kraken to punch holes for Shark to run through) have been much more fun than the games I've played against teams that aren't. Probably the single least-fun game in S3 I've had was one I won with 3 goals because my opponent refused to come forward and fight me, so I just had to steal the ball to score VPs without running down my clock.

The fighting game in S3 has got more fun IMO (as reasoned in my previous). Certainly, objectively, we can say it got toned down in it's effectiveness, and I would add to that that doing so has made the game more fun for people who want to play the take out game as much as for those who don't. In S1/2 you could argue (and indeed I've heard it argued by some of the top players) that takeout play was low-risk because you're reliably just building up damage and constantly working towards achieving your goal of reducing a model to 0hp. In S3 takeout play has become much more of a risky strategy, due to the better ability of models to escape with a counter attack and leave a stack of INF unspent, and requiring of a greater investment to convert your INF into VPs by virtue of the new Icy Sponge and Mascot rules, and the need to spend INF setting up your targets so that they can't just dodge away. IMO these make the game better.

I find trying to play the takeout game much more fun now as I have more branches on my decision tree at the start of each activation. As a result, when I achieve a takeout, or if I've set things up particularly well, a multiple takeout activation, I get much more of a buzz than in S2. Making things harder has made it more rewarding, emotionally, when things come off. It is the very nature of risk in a game that makes it exciting. In contrast the goalscoring game has become less risky, and hence less emotionally rewarding when you score.

Now, I appreciate all this is a matter of opinion, and there will be several players who disagree with my point about goalscoring, but to such people I would argue this: If I'm now finding takeout play more fun because of the adjusted risk, might this not mean that you might enjoy the game more if a similar adjustment was made to the risk. At the very least, if a change can be made that makes the game more fun for people like me without having a detrimental effect on the enjoyment of people who enjoy the goalscoring game, why not make the change?

To add some personal statistics, in all of S1 and S2 I had one game that I didn't enjoy out of 33 tournament games, under S3 it's been 6 out of 17 tournament games so far. I've been lucky that I've never played a bad opponent, so I can't put any of it down to that, it's been purely about the experience of playing against teams that only want to score goals and the lack of interplay that that strategy allows me.

Finally, when people talk about the spread of scoring for a victory there's often an assumption that the desirable state for the game is some kind of bell curve, with 3-0 and 0-6 being minor outliers, with most games being 2-2 or 1-4. Unfortunately I have no hard data to go off, but my anecdotal evidence suggests that this is currently more skewed towards 3-0 and 2-2, so I would suggest that no, it is not acting as intended currently. But I would also argue that the healthiest state for the game is that all four possible outcomes are equally possible, as this will provide the most variety in gameplay that you will likely experience.

I would like to see changes in S4 to make goalscoring more interactive for the opponent as I believe this will make the game more fun for both players. I've made some suggestions for how this could be achieved, but I'm confident that SFG will be able to come up with something decent whether it bares any relationship to my idea or not. The problem will be (IMO) if they listen too much to the "everything is fine/git gud/working as intended" people and don't consider the the issues raised. We all just want the game to be as good as it possibly can be.

cacklad, Henry, Mootaz and 7 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@malladin.ben I haven't really agreed particularly much with your arguments (that I've seen) on the topic in the past. But this was a really well put post, kudos. We all want the game to be the best that it can be for as many players as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tasku said:

Just a thought on intercepting kicks here. I'm not sure if someone suggested this already but I think there could be a place for intercept mimicing a counter attack. Something like this:

Models in the ball path could spend momentum to roll dice equal to their kick value. If succesful (or like 2 successes? dunno) the model may gain the possession of the ball. And maybe if another momentum is spent now the model could immediately perform a pass.

I think this would make things more interesting, or something like this.

I like the idea of intervening models being able to spend a momentum if a kick goes past them but don't want another dice roll what if you where able to instead increase the TN of the kick instead make it harder to make and have a chance on a failed kick to use the interception rules already in place so more like a defensive stance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warpstoned said:

@malladin.ben I haven't really agreed particularly much with your arguments (that I've seen) on the topic in the past. But this was a really well put post, kudos. We all want the game to be the best that it can be for as many players as possible.

Thank you, sir. Just trying to keep things civil. A bit of empathy for the other side in any argument is always helpful.

rozyncrantz and Mako like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly new to the game but I think if you make scoring harder all that is going to do is tilt the game more to the scrum/ball killing/killing side of the game.  I have been fielding only shark teams for the last 3 months and I can say that my opponents just straight shut down my scoring game.  I however can't just stop their killing game.  So that is a big difference you can kill the ball, I can't stop the butchers from doing damage.  I know some of you with more experience have said that the "ball killing" game isn't fun.  I think if you make scoring harder then your just forcing people into non scoring team styles completely.  I am already getting the feeling that I should shelf Shark (in my local meta anyways).  If scoring was harder man . . . I would probably shelf Fish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Polipotent said:

I am fairly new to the game but I think if you make scoring harder all that is going to do is tilt the game more to the scrum/ball killing/killing side of the game.  I have been fielding only shark teams for the last 3 months and I can say that my opponents just straight shut down my scoring game.  I however can't just stop their killing game.  So that is a big difference you can kill the ball, I can't stop the butchers from doing damage.  I know some of you with more experience have said that the "ball killing" game isn't fun.  I think if you make scoring harder then your just forcing people into non scoring team styles completely.  I am already getting the feeling that I should shelf Shark (in my local meta anyways).  If scoring was harder man . . . I would probably shelf Fish.  

Stick with it, I suspect you will do d it easier with time. I don't think anyone wants the game to be in a place where takeout play is easier than goalscoring play, but at the moment many people will argue that the tournament data suggests that goalscoring at is objectively more successful than takeout play.

I'm personally not going to dwell to much on that argument. I just find that, for me, it is less fun to play against certain goalscoring team than a TO team (as loose and overly general as those terms are) because many of their models provide little opportunity to interact when they are scoring a goal. Compared to when they're trying to take out my players, I've got counter attacks, defensive stance and healing effects that I can use against most of the players that are trying to kill me.

The essential problem as I see it is 2" melee zones. All the really decent killy models have 1" melee zones (thresher and tapped excluded). All the really good strikers (excluding Flint) have 2" melee zones. When a fighty model has a 2" melee zone they usually have a sub-par defence score (3/1, 3/0, 2/2 occasional 4/0) which makes them easier to control. Many top strikers with 2" melee zones are def 5/0 or 4/1.

Having played the game since retail launch, the game probably was too far in favour of TO play in S1 and 2. But the changes made to nerf combat all actually IMO made takeout play more fun, so don't think that any change will necessarily be a problem for you. If SFG do things as well as the seem to mostly manage to, they will be able to fix the problems that people like me are experiencing and as a result make the game more fun overall for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Polipotent May I suggest you try Corsair for a few games?  Nothing shuts down the butchers quite like two crowd outs, dread gaze and tough hide.  Shark is very vulnerable to ball killing but Corsair covers the matchups that want to do this very well.  The real power of Fish comes from how well the captains complement each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MechMage said:

@Polipotent May I suggest you try Corsair for a few games?  Nothing shuts down the butchers quite like two crowd outs, dread gaze and tough hide.  Shark is very vulnerable to ball killing but Corsair covers the matchups that want to do this very well.  The real power of Fish comes from how well the captains complement each other.

As a butchers player I find corsair much more manageable than Shark. I guess it must come down to playstyle, but I find fillet lovrs a low def fatty with a scrum around him. Not an easy match, but I find corsair gives me a fighting (pun intended) chance (and certainly a more interesting game) whilst shark is just unmanageable. I dont know how people can manage to kill the ball against shark, there's just nowhere I can put the ball that he or greyscales or sakana or A&G or Siren can't get it from.

kegslayer13 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it help if taken-out players would always return from the back edge or if players returning could be allocated less influence? I think it doesn't help fighty teams that a striker that was just taken out is an immediate threat again after returning to the pitch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ruffy said:

Would it help if taken-out players would always return from the back edge or if players returning could be allocated less influence? I think it doesn't help fighty teams that a striker that was just taken out is an immediate threat again after returning to the pitch. 

Or anybody that Fillet can get straight back into the scrum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would hurt strikers more than beaters, but giving it some more thought, it's probably a bad solution simply because of slow players being overly punished.

There are other things one could consider like having goal shots cost more influence or momentum, making it more difficult for strikers to generate momentum themselves etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now