LRB4 was better than CRP, so why not bring it back?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
Oly1987
Joined: Oct 02, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 18, 2014 - 18:44 |
 
|
As much as I hated aging when it was around I miss its purpose now.
I'd make some changes such as
1)Aging roll every skill starting off very easy and getting progressively harder. Also I'd be tempted to change the fluff of it so its less 'aging' and more excessive celebration
'The player is thrilled to have made to the next rung of the BB fame ladder and decides to party.... HARD. Make a roll and if it fails roll on the SI injury chart.'
These effects can be justified as just a little too much to drink (MNG) to getting into a fight with an ogre and getting your collar smashed (-ST), you know use your imagination and make some great back stories for your players. This makes aging less horrible (needs 2 bad rolls to pick up a perm) and also gives your players some great fluff.
2) Slight tweak of TV for 176+ players. So I'd say something along the lines of (and this is off the top of my head) for every say 20SPP? (open to adjustment) over 176 your player gains an extra 10k in TV. This is to cover the cost of his ever growing contract packet, the extra bodyguards, Personal tent with wenches.... you know, more fluff stuff. This means that you can carry their weight around for a while but eventually it will be a major detriment to your team and he will have to get cut, but not before you have a decent amount of fun with him/her.
3) Make FF not count towards TV? or half it rounded up? Not sure on this one.
4)not sure on this one either but adjusting TV value of stats and make them all 30k? Would this break it?
Just my 2 cents anyway |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2014 - 20:20 |
|
tbh I would base ageing on games played, and just limit it to niggling. I always found it weird that if a player reached legend status unharmed, he could be like that forever. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2014 - 21:20 |
|
You guys make me giggle.  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2014 - 21:26 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | tbh I would base ageing on games played, and just limit it to niggling. I always found it weird that if a player reached legend status unharmed, he could be like that forever. |
There was an alternate ageing system proposed back in 2002 iirc. Basically the way it worked was this (sorry forgot the name of the guy who proposed it)-
'Add an extra column to the team roster page, call this column exp. Note this does not change or effect spp. After every game every player rolls 1d6 if you roll higher than your current exp then your exp increases by 1. So obviously after the players 1st game their exp automatically increases to 1. Then their 2nd game it increase on a roll of 2+ and so on. When a player reaches 6 exp then they make a roll on the ageing table. Cant remember exactly how this worked, but for arguments sake let's just say on a roll of a 6 the player gains a niggling injury, on a 1-5 nothing happens. After they reach 6 and the roll is made it returns to 0 and so it continues. It was something along these lines anyway.
It never got far really, many people felt it involved too much rolling at the end of the game which is probably true tbh. But it would have the sort of effect you are talking about Woodstock. All this said people didn't like this ageing or the normal ageing so much I just don't think it could ever return.
Personally I always quite liked the AP rules in the otherwise terrible 4th edition. It got rid of ageing completely and worked in a similar way to how SE does now in some respects, though was based around individual players more than the teams tv. I thought it wa s a really cool rule, that made sense fluff wise and never got the chance it needed because so much of 4th edition was blx, Lucky Luc anyone  . Then of course started the lrbs and ageing 3rd ed with small changes was the default again. |
_________________
 |
|
spelledaren
Joined: Mar 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 08:26 |
|
Garion: thank you! Excellent post about what works and not, much of it in line with my own feelings.
One big reason I don't play any more is that I lost the joy of building my team. I often did things that were a bit odd (Sure feet as first double for orc blitzer and what not). In the current rule set this isn't only weird, I get punished for doing so. So the current rule set really does force player development into a set form, in my mind.
The other thing is that it's so much easier to maintain a legendary player, the build there and how the rest of the team should be built around the legends.
It's just less fun to watch a team grow now.
On a positive side, I recently bought a new (old) copy of the game! Nice minis, two game boards! But I haven't decided on what rules to use, or how to change things enough for my liking. This thread helped me sort some things out regarding that.
I'd prefer a fix to CPOMB, but a change in how skills are valued for TV would be more likely to bring me back. Anyhow... keep the game going! |
_________________
FUMBBL! |
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 08:38 |
|
Increasing cost of skills progressively (PC's main idea) seems a good way to counter min/maxing even reducing first skill to 10k then up from there would be something to look at. So a 6 skill legend would be equivalent to 10-12 normal first skills over a whole team. Make team building fun again. I'd rather see 13+ player squads too without them being a huge penalty for matchmaking.
Not much is wrong with CRP, a lot got better than LRB4, some things got worse (CPOMB spam), and metagaming here makes it bigger than what it is.
My 2C |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 09:05 |
|
| spelledaren wrote: | | One big reason I don't play any more is that I lost the joy of building my team. I often did things that were a bit odd (Sure feet as first double for orc blitzer and what not). In the current rule set this isn't only weird, I get punished for doing so. So the current rule set really does force player development into a set form, in my mind. |
wasn't there also a 7th skill up? room for more fun builds that way...
it's still possible to make fun players, but less efficient |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 09:07 |
|
yup they had7 skills back then which promoted the selection of lesser skills, though with TR working how it did what really happened was players were retired in this environment until they got their traits and or stats increases. Because high TR players were too bloaty. |
_________________
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 09:11 |
|
yeah, with the spp adding to TR, right?
Mr T was retired due to that IIRC.
how much would debog be worth  |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 09:25 |
|
Personally always I hated the idea that people considered firing legends because they weighed down the team.
I never actually liked having to the 'spread the skills'.
In the sports I watch it is the legends & super stars that I am paying to see.
Maybe that does make the game simpler but this is not only a game for fanatics & 1337 boys. You need the rest of us to make up the numbers. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 09:37 |
|
I agree, its not just a game for the elite, which is why changes need to be considered carefully and not made too complex. Firing legends was dumb absolutely, and for me the biggest problem with lrb4 (aside from no journeymen) was the ever spiralling cost of legends.
I have to disagree with you about the legends and scrubs part. That side of the game only suits the elite or old timer coaches that can see the flaws in the ruleset and know how best to exploit them. I always see noob coaches with bigger teams, up 14 to men at low TV on here. Its the better or older players that stick with 11 player rosters because of TV and because they can still play well with reduced numbers. Sure the newer coaches will come round eventually. But tiny rosters doesn't make sense fluff wise and is counter intuitive really.
I'm not saying for a second that the game should be without the legends, just that they should cost more. so teams become about even skill distribution once more with 1 or 2 legends. Not 5 legends and the rest scrubs which seems to be the main aim now. Legends have also been badly cheapened now by how easy they are to obtain and keep alive. Again there is a balance to be struck and the ideal rules are somewhere between the two rule sets imo. Like too many things the leap from one extreme to the other was not good for the game, where if they had taken smaller steps we would have been in a far better place. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 10:50 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
I have to disagree with you about the legends and scrubs part. That side of the game only suits the elite or old timer coaches that can see the flaws in the ruleset and know how best to exploit them. I always see noob coaches with bigger teams, up 14 to men at low TV on here. Its the better or older players that stick with 11 player rosters because of TV and because they can still play well with reduced numbers. Sure the newer coaches will come round eventually. But tiny rosters doesn't make sense fluff wise and is counter intuitive really.
|
Well, I mostly play Box & League and I have no problem with 11 man rosters.
If that works for you when you could be going in against some 2000+TV team then good luck to you.
It is nuts to expect low TV dwarves to take a deep bench. Most of them will never play.
I had 14 elf Grrls ('til Duke killed 3 of em )
Legends/scrubs is not only about 11 man teams.
That comes about because you can use your best players to their full advantage instead of having to make stupid handoffs.
I want to see 'proper' results. Not results skewed my people failing actions because they had to get the ball to the 'right' player.
That favours the 1337 coaches as they will be better able to have the right players in the right place.
| Garion wrote: |
I'm not saying for a second that the game should be without the legends, just that they should cost more. so teams become about even skill distribution once more with 1 or 2 legends. Not 5 legends and the rest scrubs which seems to be the main aim now. Legends have also been badly cheapened now by how easy they are to obtain and keep alive. Again there is a balance to be struck and the ideal rules are somewhere between the two rule sets imo. Like too many things the leap from one extreme to the other was not good for the game, where if they had taken smaller steps we would have been in a far better place. |
I don't remember meeting enough of these 5 legend teams to worry about them. I suspect that most of the moaning is due to the legends being CPOMBers.
I've never had a legend so again you seem to be favouring people who have a huge amount of time to play.
It is not so much the number of skills as how strong some combinations are. The CPOMB, +MA/Sprint can happen well before legend.
Also, I was pretty shocked when they removed traits. But now I like it. They might give more unique players & teams but some of those skills could be very difficult to counter. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 10:59 |
|
A mechanic to promote bigger rosters: Give discount on sub. (Maybe killstack is not a problem at all if all rosters are 16 players.)
Only the highest rated 12 players count towards the TV. The rest do not. (I choose 12 so that the cost of the linotype is not fully irrelevant.)
This would be very similar to NFL roster rules, whereas only the top 50 or so paid players count toward the salary cap. |
_________________
 |
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 11:14 |
|
big rosters are more often seen in League than R/B.
Where the matchmaking is more about allowing opponent the wiz or not. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 11:38 |
|
| Roland wrote: | big rosters are more often seen in League than R/B.
Where the matchmaking is more about allowing opponent the wiz or not. |
I am really not at all worried about giving my opponent a wizard. I am a lot more worried about having enough players to contest the 2nd half.
Before the change it was good to keep your TV down to avoid the worst big bashers. But now you can still draw them and running out of fodder will mean that you cannot protect your stars. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
|
|
| |
Exempt teams
Search
