gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 22:23 |
 
|
Along the lines of +1 for leap fouling, I think there should be a skill for fouling that works in a similar way to (the old) Horns; ie. if you get a run-up before the foul, you get a +1 to the roll.
Also totally agree with a big bonus if you are also holding the ball. |
_________________
  |
|
Enigma179
Joined: Sep 19, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 23:13 |
|
| gjopie wrote: | Along the lines of +1 for leap fouling, I think there should be a skill for fouling that works in a similar way to (the old) Horns; ie. if you get a run-up before the foul, you get a +1 to the roll.
Also totally agree with a big bonus if you are also holding the ball. |
I actually think that it should be the opposite; if you don't move, or move less than say half your ma before the foul, you have more time to wind up the boot, or be subtle or precise about it...
Hell if it were like that it could encourage tactical pushes to try and get the other player as close to the fouler before you stick the boot in, just to get that bonus.
Hmm, now that I think of it; I think you should be able to get the old +3 DP type thing, but not with one skill. What if DP gave you +1 as it does now, Sneaky Git gives current boost, and if you have a certain amount (say, 2) of assists, also tacks on +1 (kind of like accurate and strong arm for passing), and then this mythical third skill that gives a +1 for the low movement before foul? You use as many as you need to break armour and then add the rest to injury. Getting a fouler ready takes multiple skill ups instead of that one simple normal skill, and at least one of those skill ups is not in the general skill tree. For your opponent to suffer the maximum +3 to injury, he must be careless enough to leave his prone fellow in range of half a 3 skill dirty player's MA, with the possibility of 2 offensive assists for all 3 bonuses to kick in. However, fouling becomes easier to defend against because it requires multiple skill ups (if this non-existent third skill were a normal skill, elves would be the only team able to get them without doubles), the other guy to hit the ground, and the above conditions.
So people would still Clawpomb, but unless they did it smartly they would suffer the +3 foul of old... hell, tack on the +1 if there aren't any defensive assists too. |
_________________
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, *poof*... he's gone
Last edited by Enigma179 on %b %20, %2011 - %23:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 23:20 |
|
| Catalyst32 wrote: | | The Eye still sucks... the only reason you guys like it is because you played with it for so long. |
The eye added another dimension to the game. It made it more or less useful to foul. The current state of fouling is... well... ask Krtyen 
You're realism can go hang. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Cevap
Joined: Jun 24, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 23:25 |
|
Since everyone thinks fouling should be the answer to piling on, why not have a skill that adds +1/+2 to both the armor and the injury roll when used against players with piling on? Just a random thought there  |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 00:39 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: | I agree dp in lrb4 was a no brainer and overpowered (especially with gtr).
I would really like to see dp become stackable but if you stacked with clawmb all that happens is chaos/nurg/pact teams become even more overpowered at wiping the field than many think they are now and the poor agile teams loose out even more.
My vision was one where clawpomb teams would still be the big bashers (as is only right.. someone has to be and theyve sacrificed a lot of ball playing skills) but that agile teams would end up with a 2 skill combo (yes yes sneaky git is sensible.. i just love leaping fouls) that allowed them a surgical strike (with IGMEOY) deterant to help a bit. |
Yes, but that is why I also suggested making PO a little less wide-spread, by making it only usable vs lower strength targets or on fouls.
This would make fouling more powerful, but it also solves the "single skill" issue... thus balancing the risk vs reward... a good fouler would be a fair TV investment and make a coach think twice about fouling irresponsibly.
On the other side of the coin, PO would be less widespread and pretty much the best killy players would have built in disadvantages... nega-traits on BGs, limited mobility on most 4 ST players, etc... only chaos warriors would have almost no downside, but improved fouling would make PO more risky.
Overall... if you tweak one thing, you have to tweak many related things, so a single change will almost never fix a balance issue. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 01:46 |
|
| Wraith wrote: | | This would make fouling more powerful, but it also solves the "single skill" issue... thus balancing the risk vs reward... a good fouler would be a fair TV investment and make a coach think twice about fouling irresponsibly.. |
despite the fact that this is NOT the way i play personaly that would be my hoped for aim for fouling rules. A powerfull tool that carries risks (increasing in magnitude) is exactly the way i envisage an effective fouling rule.
| Wraith wrote: | | Overall... if you tweak one thing, you have to tweak many related things, so a single change will almost never fix a balance issue. |
very true and something that, if i'm honest, i have overlooked. I have been working under the assumption that my changes would balance a percieved problem but i forgot my own golden rule: "assume i'm an idiot".
This is the way i normaly approach fixes/ improvments/ ideas etc and i seem to have forgoten it this time. I'm NOT saying that one change wouldn't balance things but i forgot to assume that i was wrong in thinking one change would (if that makes sense). Henceforth assume all sugestions on my part are presented with the humility of knowing that i have not tested my idea's and am not certain of the effects one change in rules may have on another. I am still fairly confident of the main points behind my ideas (IGMEOY was best and a bonus in some form for agile/ non bashy teams) but I recognize the room for error in my ideas. |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 01:53 |
|
| pizzamogul wrote: | | Azure wrote: | | Essentially a nerf to PO...making PO more tactical instead of easy decision every time. |
Piling On is basically "cheating" and should carry the same rules and penalties as fouling. That would be the best nerf in my opinion, add some actual tactics to using the skill.
Think about it, you would have to give some thought before Piling On: Is the Eye on me? Do I have a bribe left? Do I really want to risk trading my ClawPOMB for the chance to break this player's armor, or should I wait until I get to reroll the injury? Even if I don't get sent off, now my guy is laying on the ground and the Eye is off my opponent... can I protect my ClawPOMB from the counter foul?
Hell, even if the Eye is not brought back make PO follow the fouling rules: "Roll doubles on the reroll and get sent off by the ref." |
I quite like this idea but my personal suspicion is that people simply wouldn't take PO anymore. After all why woul i want to risk my 3/4 skill player? If he didn't penetrate this turn then i'll just blitz next turn with the odds in my favour. In fact you'd only use po in the most extreme circumstances where youd penetrated the armour on a very good player already and wanted a better injury roll. PO would (imo) become a non-skill again. Better to apply a small nerf to po or provide a good counter for its mass use imo. |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 10:05 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: |
I quite like this idea but my personal suspicion is that people simply wouldn't take PO anymore. After all why woul i want to risk my 3/4 skill player? If he didn't penetrate this turn then i'll just blitz next turn with the odds in my favour. In fact you'd only use po in the most extreme circumstances where youd penetrated the armour on a very good player already and wanted a better injury roll. PO would (imo) become a non-skill again. Better to apply a small nerf to po or provide a good counter for its mass use imo. |
So, why would making PO a non-skill or removing it entirely be a bad thing? It's a horrible concept even if it were NOT broken. |
|
|
GAZZATROT
Joined: Apr 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 10:40 |
|
For Piling on, why not make the "Attacker" roll for Agility to see if he hits effectively. I'm in a rush, so can't explain, but I'm very confident people will see the knock-on effect.
 |
_________________
Forever fearless, sometimes stupid. |
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 15:49 |
|
| GAZZATROT wrote: | For Piling on, why not make the "Attacker" roll for Agility to see if he hits effectively. I'm in a rush, so can't explain, but I'm very confident people will see the knock-on effect.
|
Two things...
1) The players who should be the most killy, generally have poor agility. I believe a strength check would be more appropriate and realistic, if you wanted to go that route.
2) Many of the rules were designed to stream-line the table top play, by removing as many dice as possible. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
GAZZATROT
Joined: Apr 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 17:21 |
|
GAZZATROT wrote:
For Piling on, why not make the "Attacker" roll for Agility to see if he hits effectively. I'm in a rush, so can't explain, but I'm very confident people will see the knock-on effect.
Two things...
1) The players who should be the most killy, generally have poor agility. I believe a strength check would be more appropriate and realistic, if you wanted to go that route.
2) Many of the rules were designed to stream-line the table top play, by removing as many dice as possible.
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts.
1) Well I went via the Agility Roll rather than Strength to attempt to Nerf the Bigger Stronger guys who already have an advantage when it comes to "hurting". e.g. Mighty blow etc.
For realism you could argue that perhaps more agile guys would be better at piling on as they would be nimble enough to pull it off after a block, and also be more agile so as to able to target the "right areas."
2) Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, it doesn't mean we can't roll dice to determine this.
In addition if an attacker fails his agility roll he could be automatically stunned. With the Defender then either rolling his armour (or not). So there is as always several permutations here that could be explored to get the "Feel Good" balance. |
|
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 17:23 |
|
fouling works fine (ppl certainly still use it frequently). its pomb thats the problem. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
Collins254
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 17:50 |
|
Piling on should be as it is but roll 2D6 after piling on, on a 11+ he gets sent off by the ref, +1 if he has mighty blow, +1 if he caused a casualty.
Fouling shoud be the same but +1 if assisted per assist (its kinda hard to miss 7 people kicking the stuffing out of one person i would imagine), and -1 with sneaky git.
Adds only 1 dice roll to the sequence, makes piling on still worth it, POMB is slightly nerfed but no massivly, youd risk it for only being sent off on 11+ or 10+ if you cause a cas coz thats worth it, but 10+ for POMB or 9+ for causing cas is more risky, and with fouling works really well but will be careful with too many assists? |
_________________
Its all fun and games until someone gets killed by a snotling! |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 17:57 |
|
To be honest, DP and PO is not even close to being the major problem with the rules... but since this thread is about DPs, I will refrain from derailing it. Unless someone asks me nicely |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 21, 2011 - 18:42 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
