Jump to content
Bertmac

Is scoring goals too easy.

Recommended Posts

Personally i'd like the game to be 1 turn slower. I find the majority of my games are over by turn 2, and the minority are over by turn 3. The actual mechanical game may still be continuing, but the winner has been decided barring intervention of the dice gods. I have plenty of opponents who just concede when i open turn 2/turn 3 with a casket time on someone important 

I'd prefer most games to be decided on turn 3, with a minority to be decided on turn 4. 

Dealing with football teams is getting easier the more i play, if they can significantly out strike you, you just refuse to play that game and kill the ball as hard as possible. But football is still king

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a combination of a few things - 

1) Going first is still too good in my opinion, You're essentially playing a goal up unless you're playing someone like Corsair, Siren, Shark, Obulus? Some teams (Butchers, Brewers, etc) essentially have to start at a 0-4 game, and stupid knee slider can mean there's no punishment for it. That paired with the 3-4 momentum you'll end on. I've had games with Midas where I've received, got the first goal, got inactive and banged in another goal. 

2) Scoring goals is just SO much faster then killing players.

Those 2 things lead to the killing the ball, at Vengeance I had it done 3 times to me. I lost all those games 12-8, (To be fair I missed 2 seperate goals in this case) but I don't think the problem is with killing the ball, it's that goals are just too easy and win a game SO much faster then take outs. 

I know people say "It's GuildBALL" if that's true just delete brawl teams and fire in goals. In the current climate all brawl teams CAN do is kill the ball, which people have said is fun for no one. It degenerates into bashing in the middle of the table while one player attempts to get the ball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe reducing the VP for goal-scoring to 3, instead of 4, could be a good solution: longer games, bigger effort for goaler teams to win, etc.

Or maybe some kind of diminishing efficiency, for example, the first 2 goals gives 4 VP, then the next goals only 2 VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What if the TNs for shots on goal were (further) altered to reflect distance?

Tap Ins = Shots taken from <=3" = TN of 4

Shots = Shots taken from >3 and <=6 = TN of 5

Long Shots = Shots taken from >6 = TN of 6

Snap Shots still require 2 results within the system above.  The Momentum requirements for both Shots and Snapshots remain the same.  Leave the points awarded as is, but create more risk for committing models deep into enemy territory in order to get better dice/shot odds.

 

Edited by Woldie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MechMage said:

I don't think the solution to goals being prominent is to drastically increase the odds of random failure.  There is enough chance in the game already.

This ^^

Share this post


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

What if the TNs for shots on goal were (further) altered to reflect distance?

Tap Ins = Shots taken from <=3" = TN of 4

Shots = Shots taken from >3 and <=6 = TN of 5

Long Shots = Shots taken from >6 = TN of 6

Snap Shots still require 2 results within the system above.  The Momentum requirements for both Shots and Snapshots remain the same.  Leave the points awarded as is, but create more risk for committing models deep into enemy territory in order to get better dice/shot odds.

 

I actually don't hate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the introduction of some type of guild specific "Goal Model" would go a long way to increasing the depth of goal-scoring by introducing a ton of design space, and add another axis to rebalance teams that can/can't and I think is the best idea to emerge thus far. Some serious thought would have to go into figuring out how they work, but it doesn't necessitate retooling the entire goal-scoring system which is a huge plus.

They could be passive effects that make small changes to the shot/scoring process (E.G. Someone in another thread had the idea of a Hunter goal-post that snares enemies who score on it as well as a few other cool ideas.) Or maybe they could have some kind of cost associated with activating the ability. (E.G. They have their own Activation, An ally must spend 1MP to activate them, An enemy needs to declare a shot etc, etc.)

Also Knee slider should be purged from every Plot Card deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Petraites said:

Maybe reducing the VP for goal-scoring to 3, instead of 4, could be a good solution: longer games, bigger effort for goaler teams to win, etc.

Or maybe some kind of diminishing efficiency, for example, the first 2 goals gives 4 VP, then the next goals only 2 VP.

I don't think that with the current throw in system that 3 point goals are a very good idea. 3 goals is harder than it is made out to be, @Siberys explained it pretty well so I won't get long winded. If Fish had to get 4 goals you just would stop seeing Fish competitively. End of story.

If there was an adjustment where the ball dropped in and scattered from the middle though... well I'd need to test it out before I could put my (worhtless) seal of approval on it.

 

4 hours ago, Woldie said:

What if the TNs for shots on goal were (further) altered to reflect distance?

Tap Ins = Shots taken from <=3" = TN of 4

Shots = Shots taken from >3 and <=6 = TN of 5

Long Shots = Shots taken from >6 = TN of 6

Snap Shots still require 2 results within the system above.  The Momentum requirements for both Shots and Snapshots remain the same.  Leave the points awarded as is, but create more risk for committing models deep into enemy territory in order to get better dice/shot odds.

 

TN 6 for using base range on models that are supposed to be the best strikers in the game? Then lose a die if there is a goalie? In a football game? This exasperates the problem with goals being big risk. I am willing to concede that something needs done but I don't think we need an earth shaking change to get there.

What about something like: Play to 15 VP - Goals are 5 points, takeouts are 3 points, mascot take outs worth 1 or 2? Perhaps we are looking at the wrong end of the equation. Perhaps rather than trying to nerf the shooting game we should look at ways to make the killy game more viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Woldie said:

What if the TNs for shots on goal were (further) altered to reflect distance?

Tap Ins = Shots taken from <=3" = TN of 4

Shots = Shots taken from >3 and <=6 = TN of 5

Long Shots = Shots taken from >6 = TN of 6

Snap Shots still require 2 results within the system above.  The Momentum requirements for both Shots and Snapshots remain the same.  Leave the points awarded as is, but create more risk for committing models deep into enemy territory in order to get better dice/shot odds.

 

That way vVelocity, Tenderizer, and Millstone are auto includes as they bring most current distance Fish goals to a 51.8% chance at success after bonus timing. At best odds the team would be about 85% per shot.

As I've expressed last time this type of variable TN/distance was brought up (see mid May in this subforum) is a huge turn off in a game this clean. Combined with the low odds I'd just as soon see goals become 3 vp instead, which I don't care for either but sounds way better as at least I'm not missing all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I think tweaked the game so far into a scoring game instead of a killing game is the change to the Icy Sponge tokens.  They said that people were never deciding to sit on the bench an extra turn, so they removed the need to do so; now when your Striker is taken out after scoring, they can get into a fairly safe health state quickly, making the repeat take out that much harder.  I always felt that the better change there would have been to keep 2 Icy Sponge tokens, but moved the first one lower, and the second one higher.  

For example: Seasons 1 and 2 Shark had 17 health, with an Icy Sponge on 6 and 12, and it was changed to just one token on 9 health in Season 3.  To help counteract the scoring dominance, change the Icy Sponge tokens to 4 and 14.  Now bringing Shark back on and rushing him into position for another scoring run puts him at 8 Health if you have the Momentum to spare, and a suicidal 4 if not.  Leaving him off for a full turn is nearly impossible, because he's a Captain, but he would then have almost all of his Health.  Perhaps if they have 2 Icy Sponge tokens, they can come on anywhere in your half of the pitch.

I do think that due to the ease of scoring with a 3+ when within 4", one less Momentum should be gained from the score (so a Screamer still gives you 1, but in general none).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pending Forum Suspension said:

TN 6 for using base range on models that are supposed to be the best strikers in the game? Then lose a die if there is a goalie? In a football game? This exasperates the problem with goals being big risk. I am willing to concede that something needs done but I don't think we need an earth shaking change to get there.

What about something like: Play to 15 VP - Goals are 5 points, takeouts are 3 points, mascot take outs worth 1 or 2? Perhaps we are looking at the wrong end of the equation. Perhaps rather than trying to nerf the shooting game we should look at ways to make the killy game more viable.

I'm not super against 3-VP goals, though that third goal is already difficult to get to, but yeah I'd prefer to see killing brought up a touch. someone else suggested in an earlier thread that things would be about on-par if the icy sponge were a few ticks lower on most characters, and I can dig that argument. I'm not sure how best to address that, though I had an idea that could get to that end without requiring rewrites of a bunch of cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Atras said:

One thing that I think tweaked the game so far into a scoring game instead of a killing game is the change to the Icy Sponge tokens.  They said that people were never deciding to sit on the bench an extra turn, so they removed the need to do so; now when your Striker is taken out after scoring, they can get into a fairly safe health state quickly, making the repeat take out that much harder.  I always felt that the better change there would have been to keep 2 Icy Sponge tokens, but moved the first one lower, and the second one higher.

Honestly I found the play pattern of preying on returning players to be pretty boring. It's extremely punishing to play a man and 1-2 influence down, contributing to your opponent's snowball, while returning model's to the pitch also contributed to your opponent's VP snowball.

I think Suspension's right, the killing game just feels difficult and slow next to scoring. By the time you've chewed through that 2/3 with 20 Health and Tough Hide the game's over, and this isn't helped by the amount of defensive tech on the most premier scorers about. (2" Melee, Clone, Buyable Dodges, UM, Def 5 & 6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Pending Forum Suspension said:

I don't think that with the current throw in system that 3 point goals are a very good idea. 3 goals is harder than it is made out to be, @Siberys explained it pretty well so I won't get long winded. If Fish had to get 4 goals you just would stop seeing Fish competitively. End of story.

If there was an adjustment where the ball dropped in and scattered from the middle though... well I'd need to test it out before I could put my (worhtless) seal of approval on it.

sure the 3rd goal is difficult to come by now but would it still be the case if the goals were only a quarter of the points needed instead of 33% . would everyone need to kill the ball like they do now, or would it be incentive for them to try and playing some soccer as well?  as a player of flighty teams I would love the opportunity to play more soccer without insuring my quick demise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kegslayer13 said:

sure the 3rd goal is difficult to come by now but would it still be the case if the goals were only a quarter of the points needed instead of 33% . would everyone need to kill the ball like they do now, or would it be incentive for them to try and playing some soccer as well?  as a player of flighty teams I would love the opportunity to play more soccer without insuring my quick demise. 

It'd have the opposite effect - bally teams would have to stretch for kills as insurance against losing the ball for too long, and killy teams would have even less incentive than now to play the ball (it's worth less points, and keep-away becomes even more important since goal-scoring teams need to get quick goals even harder now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would going the opposite direction - making takeouts worth 3VP - make any more sense?

It would speed up the killy game considerably, for sure. Scoring teams could go for two goals, one takeout, and a mascot if they couldn't go 3-0. Could maybe make killing mascots relevant again.

Would it make killing *too* fast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means you go from 6 to 4 kills needed, which I suspect might be a bit on the fast side, but I'm not sure. You'd also have to figure out what to do about bonus VPs and Mascots to bring them in line.

Share this post


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

Would going the opposite direction - making takeouts worth 3VP - make any more sense?

It would speed up the killy game considerably, for sure. Scoring teams could go for two goals, one takeout, and a mascot if they couldn't go 3-0. Could maybe make killing mascots relevant again.

Would it make killing *too* fast?

I think this is more of a step in the right direction. I think a lot of ideas in the thread are going about it the wrong way.

If you weaken scoring, you make killing the ball an even more effective strategy. If a team like shark fish needs 4 goals instead of 3, this won't make me not kill the ball. This would weaken scoring significantly and I think you would see a dramatic decrease of very ball heavy teams in competitive play.

I think the right call is to make scoring slightly faster. I don't know how as I think 3 VPs would be too much. Killing is more reliable and consistent so it can't be too fast.

The other option would be as @Napoleon said and slow the game down somehow so the the speed difference between the styles is less impactful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternate scoring systems are luckily very easy to test since they don't make any fundamental changes to the rules. So it might be worthwhile to do some games with say play to 15, goal is 5, take out is 3 or any others suggested above and report data back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of looking at how Take outs are scored, rather then affecting striking. That may be a better way to go, I have played plenty of games which have gone very low on clock, making the game between 1 Hour 10 and 1 Hour 30. I don't think adding game time would be something people want, games are draining between managing to kill the ball against shark, keeping players against filet and doing both against a midas team. 

Take outs being 3 VPs is interesting, maybe too fast? But I think that more the way we should be looking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find topics like this interesting to read through. 

I really don't see the problem with goal scoring against the more melee orientated teams and i don't kill the ball in a corner because it then takes it away as a resource for myself. Im currently something like 26tournie games and 3 loses this year. Of those loses 2 have been crap dice and one some bad luck and a slight misplay with the ball on my part.

I know i play stuff differently to other people, condition game with smoke, 2 goals with capt rage team, take outs with shark, masons in general.

Alot of what i see for me comes down to picks and how you play. Majority of my recent 11 tournie games have been against fish, alchs, engineers. All very capable of getting the ball easily and scoring. All teams have players that can hold the ball well, steps you can take to control the game.

 

I often find its when people over extend as has been mentioned that the game becomes easier and they are punished. Whilst i can see how people find how binary goals seem, as has been mentioned they are compound and one thing goes wrong and thats often the goal run finished, especially if you have match fixing. Vengeance token also punishes goal scorers only....

In my last tournie i lost int every game playing masons and my opponent elected to recieve. In order to score they have to work around a situation i create and then potentially lose that player and a goal back by end of turn 2. 

Because they have generally only extended one player this means most commonly they are limited in the threats they can pose back and i win initiative turn 3 to score or punish a player again. 

10-4 is a great place to sit start of turn 3...as long as you have somewhere to put the ball safe on the counter goal.

All of the fighting teams can still score very well with the right players. I often find kicking to not be a huge detriment that people percieve. Having someone in a position to threaten a take out and win initiative when most teams are limited when recieving to 3 or 4mp and have to spend some to score is a goid position ti be in. Accept that they will probably score just make it hard and capitalise on it.

Of my past 3 loses, 2 were to shark fish and 1 midas. All games were 3 goal loses in which i kicked. 2 were using masons and 1 smoke. These are the only games ive conseeded 3 goals and tbh i should def have won 2 and probably the 3rd. If i had kicked to space in my last game i think id have won in turn 5 with the situation described above where it 8-8.

 

I have also noticed the meta shifting in the last 6 months as people become more adept and play what they want rather than as much echo chamber.

 

So for me i think the balance between goals and take outs is there for moat teams, just counter pick in your selection well...you have the options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Petraites said:

Maybe reducing the VP for goal-scoring to 3, instead of 4, could be a good solution: longer games, bigger effort for goaler teams to win, etc.

Or maybe some kind of diminishing efficiency, for example, the first 2 goals gives 4 VP, then the next goals only 2 VP.

The above, and I'd love it. I'd even try this at 15 points needed, so the game is longer.
I'll actually propose it at my next game :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for me, if Knee Slider was removed, I would be happy with the mechanics as they are mostly. I do wish there was more active play that could be done to stop goals (because not everyone has access to Compound or Brick) as otherwise it can feel like the striker can 'go in' with some ease (see Vitriol or Mist with Solthecians). Knee Slider though is total BS. Taking the risk away from scoring a goal by getting to move 8-11" away is total nonsense and I wish it had never been revived. Scoring a goal should leave you exposed - that's sort of the point, Run the Length is there to provide some mitigation but not out right denial like Knee Slider.

Also note, goals with Union are not exactly hard with Mist (especially now with Benediction) & A+G and Smoke is almost as good as Midas, in a team which has been discussed as being 'possibly too good' overall. I think we can agree the 'meta' has shifted towards 2-2 from 4-1 and that is a speed shift and some teams (Brewers *cough*) might feel like they are finding the game too fast against the scorers.

But I guess it's a matter of opinion. Some will like the fluid guild BALL play, some will find it too fast for slower teams. I think with a few cuts, it could be perfect. And I wish more teams had a choice of a goalie rather than just 3 - after all it is a game position and surely every team would fill that position even if they are an attacking team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that goals have a lot of moving parts. Sure, first turn goal may require some kicking?

But I mean, as long as a player is normally 1-2 inches off deployment (Smoke,Vitriol, Midas, Mist, Shark, A&G, etc etc) all they simply have to do is spend some influence and make the 4+ on the kick. 

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


×