PaddyMick
Joined: Jan 03, 2012
|
 Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 19:30 |
 
|
I'm trying to make a mutated passing Pact team that ae more in the spirit of the roster(1550k TV and only one MB!)
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=717455
Just havn't got around introducing a Big Guy yet. I eventually want two. Any recommendations? TV efficiency, even winning games is not a priority (right now), I just wanna build a cool team.
@OP: Nice idea anyway. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 19:32 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | maysrill wrote: | Pact can be as diverse and fun or as grossly abusive as you choose to make them.
(of course you can tell by their respective records how well that works) |
That was more or less the point of my proposed change, I think that cheaper big guys encourages a coach to include them on the team, instead of disregarding them. |
I would not disagree that making them cheaper might get coaches to play with them.
BUT
Lets say all three are 20 TV cheaper. So you save 60 TV overall but is that enough to over come coaches who:
1)Care more about W/L than player cost
2)Care more about CR than player cost
3)Care more about min/max as the path to victory over fluff. The big guy discount is to give them incentive to play the fluff.
4)Care more abusing the scheduler than player cost.
The list can go on and on.
Bottom line for me. Player cost is the least on their mind. Inless you drop their cost by half, then they might consider the troll or Ogre but still probally just one of them. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
| PainState wrote: | | Kryten wrote: | | maysrill wrote: | Pact can be as diverse and fun or as grossly abusive as you choose to make them.
(of course you can tell by their respective records how well that works) |
That was more or less the point of my proposed change, I think that cheaper big guys encourages a coach to include them on the team, instead of disregarding them. |
I would not disagree that making them cheaper might get coaches to play with them.
BUT
Lets say all three are 20 TV cheaper. So you save 60 TV overall but is that enough to over come coaches who:
1)Care more about W/L than player cost
2)Care more about CR than player cost
3)Care more about min/max as the path to victory over fluff. The big guy discount is to give them incentive to play the fluff.
4)Care more abusing the scheduler than player cost.
The list can go on and on.
Bottom line for me. Player cost is the least on their mind. Inless you drop their cost by half, then they might consider the troll or Ogre but still probally just one of them. |
In part, your reasoning is why I think that marauders ought to be +10k to offset that. Those coaches playing the roster "wrong" pay a TV penalty for doing so. Not that they won't still be able to abuse the system.
For the other side of things, I really think it's a serious mistake in the ruleset to provide 0-16 players on a roster that have simple access to both strength and mutation skills. Marauders and beastmen end up getting spammed in a kill-all-menz way that isn't particularly fun, interesting, and it dumbs down the gameplay as well. |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 20:05 |
|
To be honest, I think Pact would be great if they entirely removed S access from the linos.
That's all it would need to get people to play 'properly' I think. |
_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
 |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 20:26 |
|
Well, we could increase passing game if we would change the passing sequence into one roll that has one die from the passer and one from the catcher. This would change the ball-switching roll to 2d similar to block rolls and make passing game better in general.
Still, it would be a different game also then...
There are people that want to win. How would you like them to play? With that answer, you know how you want to change the game.
Currently, people that want to win, play sweetspotted teams in [B]. They don't play in [R] as they have hard time to find games, as they have optimised their teams to win.
One option is to change the rosters that are used for powergaming so that they cannot be used for powergaming. This will sift the powergaming to some other roster. As Chainsaw implied, Chaos would be the next natural target - there are already many powergaming Chaos teams on the [B].
Powergaming is where competition is. Where do you want to put it? You can only reduce it by reducing the intent to compete. |
|
|
Cyrus-Havoc
Joined: Sep 15, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 20:40 |
|
The problem with Pact is one of choice. Most coaches will choose the combination of players that they think will win (or kill) the most.
That some coaches play them in a manner close to what was intended while commendable, does not change or affect the problem in any way.
I believe the only way to deal with this is to restrict the choices. Now this would require changes that are probably contrary to the Team build guidelines & would be dismissed out of hand. However what I propose is the introduction of player minimums.
So for example you may say that the Squad must contain one of each Goblin Skaven & Dark Elf in a starting team. Then cash permitting they must be replaced if possible to be a legal roster. You could perhaps also make it mandatory to have at least one Big Guy. Missing the game players would still count toward a legal roster.
I would also reduce Marauders to a maximum of 10 although this would also be breaking the lineman rule of 0-16.
I quite like the idea of reducing the cost of Big Guys but don't think that on it's own it would persuade many coaches to take them.
All that said this is probably too complex a solution to stand any chance of being accepted. |
_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach! |
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:01 |
|
How about changing the # of Big Guys from 0-1 to 1. Thus ensuring they are the first players bought, if they die then a JM Big Guy fills in until you get another and if you have enough money to buy you have to buy one. (variation on that would be to enforce 2 of the 3 big guys and maybe the same for the Renegades?)
I play with as many different guys as I can (although I may not have replaced the rat... cant remember :p) but thats because I love the idea of as many different races on the filed as possible  (I even took the Chainsaw wielding Orc at a TT tournament )
Edit: got excited I had an idea... then read C-H post properly :p my apologies  |
Last edited by Dalfort on %b %31, %2013 - %21:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:04 |
|
^^ Agreed. I would use BGs if there was an incentive, as they are much more fun. |
_________________
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:08 |
|
What if, in the flavor of Pact, the three big guys had Animosity instead of Loner?
Alternately, they could get mutations on normal rolls, like UW. Actually, giving the BGs mutations on normals and taking that ability from the marauders would balance things out a lot. |
_________________
Author of Firehurler (Twinborn Trilogy Book #1), Aethersmith (Book #2), Sourcethief (Book #3) |
|
ilpars
Joined: Nov 14, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:22 |
|
| Quote: |
What if, in the flavor of Pact, the three big guys had Animosity instead of Loner?
|
This change is much more interesting then cost change. Loner is a big turn-off for big guys. |
|
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:24 |
|
Or making Mutations random like 2nd Ed \o/ it may have been complicated but I miss Spontaneous Combustion :p |
_________________
 |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
6338 GSMP 50k for Pact Marauder
6338 G 50K Human Lineman
This cannot be defended.
Simply i would make them either 60K, and frankly still cheap, or drop both P and S access.
Oh and 'Galaks idea' is piffle. Traits as he apparently suggested would just destroy other rosters while meaning the real problem builds (in open play) would just rinse and repeat until the rookies got the right dice. So no benefit and lots of problems created. Words fail me.... |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:31 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | What if, in the flavor of Pact, the three big guys had Animosity instead of Loner?
Alternately, they could get mutations on normal rolls, like UW. Actually, giving the BGs mutations on normals and taking that ability from the marauders would balance things out a lot. |
Iam all on board with this idea.
For me it makes no sense that a CP minatour cannot mutate on normal rolls but the Chaos minatour can.
Giving the big guys mutation access and making the maruaders only get mutation on double makes a lot of sense and brings some balance.
Also give the skaven free mutation access...he is only playing on the CP team for the free warpstone anyway. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:36 |
|
if you give the skaven "free" access why not just allow all the renegades M access? surely they are "different" than their base race implies as they left the fold to play for the Pact team in the first place... and I agree the Big Guys should have M access too. |
_________________
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 - 21:40 |
|
| uuni wrote: | For diversity, I think Galak's proposition of new traits was interesting: have Block, Dodge, Guard, Leader and Claw only be accessible only if the player had appropriately General, Agility, Strength, Passing and Mutation regular access available and the player rolled doubles for skill roll.
That would reduce the regular skill picks. Would Wrestle and Side Step proliferate? It would surely be a different game... |
That's pretty much the worst idea I have ever seen. |
|
|
|
|
Blood Bowl Variants
Search
