| Poll |
| Where should I apply the 'uncontested catch' rule? |
| You shouldn't. AG3 passing is perfectly fine. |
|
75% |
[ 51 ] |
| Make it a passing skill. Perfect Spiral. |
|
10% |
[ 7 ] |
| Add it to a marginal passing skill. |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| Add it to the Pass skill. |
|
10% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Apr 26, 2016 - 23:14 |
 
|
| joec911 wrote: | | Yeah, I got bored reading through this whole thread. Did anyone bring up NFL statistics for catch rate? Top wideouts are hauling it in roughly 70%, and those are star/legend type players. |
Are any of those NFL players orcs?
Or playing with a ball that has metal studs and spikes on it? |
|
|
caleb157
Joined: Oct 12, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2016 - 23:28 |
|
uncontested catching is basically nerves of steel which pro elf catchers start with, it is a pass skill however. so would it work to switch it to an agility skill access? |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2016 - 23:58 |
|
We're so used to the G/A/S/P/M break down, but it doesn't have to be just that way.
Why not add some 'positional' skills that only catchers/throwers/blitzers/BGs/... could take.
You'd have to rework the player position descriptions for some teams (like designating prestigors as blitzers for example) but it would allow for some of these skills to be made more powerful since access to them would be solely for specific positionals.
It would also be a way to get around cpomb spam by moving MB and or PO to a positional instead of straight S access. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 00:08 |
|
| licker wrote: | We're so used to the G/A/S/P/M break down, but it doesn't have to be just that way.
|
This has been brought up before, I do think there is some merit to it.
Have skill tress that are normal access for all the positional players/big guys, linos and then create a new mutant positional.
The only way to cross into another skill tree is on the double.
You can then split up the big combos like C/MB/PO, MB/PO and Blodge onto separate "trees".
Examples:
The only way to achieve CMBPO would be on the mutant positional player. Claw is normal access and then he needs to roll doubles for MB and PO.
PO is "normal" big guy skill and only can be accessed by positional players who are Blitzers, lets say.
Elf linos do not have access to Agility skills and Elf catchers do not have access to General skills.
On and on and on.....
I think you can see where this is going.
******************************
Now back to passing.
If the goal of making passing easier is to promote moving the ball down field faster and provide more quick strike ability.
Well
We could look back at 1 and 2Ed Blood Bowl.
IF your player is not in a TZ a hand off catch is automatic. That provides the ability of low AG teams to chain 2 players and advance the ball downfield a lot faster. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 00:32 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
Now back to passing.
If the goal of making passing easier is to promote moving the ball down field faster and provide more quick strike ability.
Well
We could look back at 1 and 2Ed Blood Bowl.
IF your player is not in a TZ a hand off catch is automatic. That provides the ability of low AG teams to chain 2 players and advance the ball downfield a lot faster. |
Kinda makes it trivial to feed TDs to your AG1 (and 2) players though doesn't it. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 00:42 |
|
| licker wrote: | | PainState wrote: |
Now back to passing.
If the goal of making passing easier is to promote moving the ball down field faster and provide more quick strike ability.
Well
We could look back at 1 and 2Ed Blood Bowl.
IF your player is not in a TZ a hand off catch is automatic. That provides the ability of low AG teams to chain 2 players and advance the ball downfield a lot faster. |
Kinda makes it trivial to feed TDs to your AG1 (and 2) players though doesn't it. |
Well, that is a PoV discussion.
I play Khemri, getting some TD's on my TG's on "free" hand offs? Yeah, sign me up.
I play dorfs, getting some TD's on my long beards on free hand offs? Yeah, sign me up. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 00:49 |
|
Well yeah, I mean that's cool and all if you think it's cool and all.
Kinda makes it too easy for lizards though, they would almost never have to score with a skink.
And TG ball carrier all day no? I mean isn't that what everyone would do? Of course there are ways to stop them still, but that rule just feels out of place to me. |
|
|
joec911
Joined: Feb 06, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 08:01 |
|
| licker wrote: | | joec911 wrote: | | Yeah, I got bored reading through this whole thread. Did anyone bring up NFL statistics for catch rate? Top wideouts are hauling it in roughly 70%, and those are star/legend type players. |
Are any of those NFL players orcs?
Or playing with a ball that has metal studs and spikes on it? |
Right, so why are we making it easier? |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 08:06 |
|
Is it a passing or handoff thread? |
_________________
 |
|
Stikki
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 15:33 |
|
Well plasmoid, now that we've been introduced, I'll offer up an opinion - probably one most people disagree with.
Passing is fine as it is and I really don't think it needs any kind of buff. Yes, I know it's risky for AG3 and almost suicidal for AG2, but then not all teams are supposed to be equal. Surely, if you love the passing game, you pick an AG4 team or, if you're lucky enough to skill up an AG3 passer with a +AG, then develop around that. In my view, that's what the more standard teams (human, orc, etc) excel at - developing the team around whatever stat increases come along. If it happens to be a couple of +ST, then you go bash, if it's +MA you go run, and +AG you go pass/catch.
It's my experience that (apart from the odd specialist) most coaches who play the weak AG teams do so because they like to control the ball within a strong defence, whether that's a cage or just a bunch of killers taking out any opponents in range. Allowing these teams to have a better chance of passing/catching will probably not increase the amount of passing they do. Of course, you'll always have the occasional coach who wants to have the greatest ever passing zombie or treeman or whatever, but changing the rules just to please them would not be a great idea.
As has already been stated, the real problem is with the disadvantage which comes from scoring quickly. 4-turn quarters would certainly change this, but probably not for the better. I can imagine plenty of non-elf games which would end in 0-0 draws and plenty more where the coach would decide scoring is far too difficult and just go for a team designed to destroy the opposition rather than try and compete on TDs. Obviously this wouldn't work in tourneys, but for league/BB/ranked it would still make sense to some.
And scoring fast doesn't necessarily end any chance you have of controlling the game, it just means you have to do it on defence rather than offence. It's hard, but it can be hugely satisfying when it works. And when it doesn't...well, you suffer a lot of injuries, but that's the nature of the elf game.
But mostly I don't think passing needs to be changed because it works perfectly well as is, if you bother to use it. I pass a lot - and I long bomb a lot as well - and a lot of the time it doesn't work. But when it does, it's brilliant. Sure, I use wood elves and a lot of my passers have been AG5 so it's fairly risk free, but then that's my point: If you want a passing game, get yourself a tooled up passer (which is easy enough to do under the current ruleset) and if you don't have a good passer, don't try and play the passing game.
As a final point, I think improving the catcher is a side issue. Catching an accurate pass is already at +1, catch and diving catch deal with most failed rolls anyway, and there has to be some level of risk, otherwise the whole thing becomes boring.
As all of this is quite negative, I'll finish with a positive suggestion. If you want more passing, then award 2 SPPs for a long pass and 3 SPPs for a long bomb (and NO SPPs for any backwards pass!) |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2016 - 16:41 |
|
| Stikki wrote: | Well plasmoid, now that we've been introduced, I'll offer up an opinion - probably one most people disagree with.
-snipped talk about passing being fine- |
From poll: You shouldn't. AG3 passing is perfectly fine 76%
 |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 18:50 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | Upon further review i dont think Multiblock should work on blitz, and also not on frenzy. I dont see any way how multiblock could break cage without working on blitz.
That leaves only a few options for cagebreaking
- Break tackle
- Leap
- New skill |
I agree but would like to hear your reasoning if you don't mind. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:12 |
|
If it would work on blitz, then it would be best used at killing pixels rather than sack ballcarriers. It would be like frenzy plus, where you can hit twice, but 2 different players. Frenzy is extremely good with killstack, as dramatically increase the chance of the pow, so wouls multiblock. Lets do some calculations.
Example is Killstack player with tackle, who hits a player with block.
Chance of a pow (or equivalent) in 2d block is 4/9 = 44.44%
With frenzy:
Chance of a pow (or equivalent) in 2d block is 56/81 = 69.14%
With proposed multiblock:
Chance of a pow (or equivalent) in 2d block is 4/9 = 44.44%
but there is another block with
Chance of a pow (or equivalent) in 2d block is 4/9 = 44.44%
So multiblock could realistically provide 0.8888 pow per blitz compared to 0.4444 without frenzy/multiblock, and 0.6914 with frenzy. And not even counting the multiblock+frenzy options.
Summary: Proposed multiblock would be a serious upgrade for killstack. |
_________________
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:42 |
|
What you say makes perfect sense on the multi-block-on-blitz idea.
Simply changing M-B to be able to follow up on the first hit infringes too much on Frenzy territory as well, especially as it would be available to Big Guys on normals. The fact that M-B is hard to set up is what keeps it from being selected -- and perhaps rightfully so.
But what if the proposal is simply for M-B to remain unchanged, but the combo of M-B and Frenzy to enable the choice of following up after the first block, and switching targets, on blocks only (not blitzes)? Then you've got a potentially powerful combo but only if you invest several skills first -- arguably SF would be necessary, and Grab would be nice. M-B's ST+2 factor would limit the second block to a 1d or -2d in most cases, assuming the defender knew what he was doing (or wasn't already in severe trouble). |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:51 |
|
My calculations and personal view suggests that multiblitz would not work in the current killstack environment. It would be an interesting in-game experience if killstack would be not present, but such multiblock shenanigans would be available, but then the long term attrition part of the game should be fixed.
Example
Assumtptions:
- No piling on
- Multiblock works as proposed
Possible consequence to readd the lost attrition:
- All MNG result is Niggle
or
- All injury result is either Niggle/Stat/Death (no soft option as BH or MNG)
I would personally dont mind a lower attrition rate in any given game, but to keep teams in check, the actual casualties should be more severe to protect the meta from monster teams.
P.S. Please note that in such case the new killstack would be MightyBlow+Multiblock (although less severe than actually killstack with PO). |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
