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 |
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 11:44 |
 
|
| bghandras wrote: | 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. |
...and this suggestion would also promote even team development (rather than making 1-2-3 legend, rest fodder), as if you have all your linos equally skilled, then the last few wont count toward the TV. |
_________________
 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 11:59 |
|
I'd still love to see a rework of TV, bring back the cummulative cost of skills to promote balanced teams more than legends&fodder type of teams.
This alone would reshape minmaxed killer teams to a more manageable thing for rookie-ish teams.
I've somewhat read the first few pages of this threat and didn't see any mention to TV, which I believe is the main flaw of this ruleset. So here are my two cents. |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 12:18 |
|
read my post zakatan its got lots about TV. 
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=24949&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
| bghandras wrote: | 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. |
Sort of how AP worked in 4th edition in the idea anyway.
The players all added to the teams value. But with AP only the top players (56spp + IIRC) would start asking for additional appearence fees. Again this promoted deeper benches. It was a good idea, though it wasnt perfectly implemented because it still lead to firing for legends all too frequently. It just needed some adjustment really to make that system work and it was certainly preferable to ageing which preceeded and followed it. |
_________________
 |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 15:16 |
|
I would be less inclined to fire legends as per proposed, as I would also lose a possible freeness of a skilled player. Just as example
2 Legends 250k each
3 other special players 170k each
9 linos with 1 skill 90k each
2 unskilled linos 70k each
As per proposal the TV is the top 12 players, which is 1640 (plus rerolls plus apo plus FF plus Cl plus Ac)
Then I fire a Legend, so I will have
1 Legends 250k
3 other special players 170k each
9 linos with 1 skill 90k each
3 unskilled linos 70k each
As per proposal the TV is the top 12 players, which is 1480 (plus rerolls plus apo plus FF plus Cl plus Ac)
The difference is 1640-1480=160, which is equal to 250-90, which is the cost difference of a 1 skilled lino and the legend.
I would quite honestly not fire the legend, unless really serious circumstance.
--------
Lets compare your proposal of sinergy penalty, which would tax the legends. You proposed 20k,20k,30k,30k,40k,40k per skill level. In this case the above mentioned legends would cost 60k more, which is 310k. I would defenetly fire such an expensive legend, especially if the TV hit is full, so against 70k (not 90k as above).
TV hit in this case is 310-70=240 (compared to 160k)
--------
As a summary my proposal is better at protecting legends, provides less motivation to retire players, and my proposal promote full rosters better. |
_________________
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 21:34 |
|
yeah I looked at that post at some point. You should add headers and number the pages for readability |
_________________
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 21:35 |
|
also KILL spiralling expenses.
or at least allow us to turn them off in L
please! |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 21:37 |
|
Killing SE kills tournaments. Though an adjustable SE would be a great thing in L |
_________________
|
|
spubbbba
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 21:45 |
|
I'd be wary of implementing complicated costs for players in a ruleset designed for both TT and online play. Bookkeeping can be a real pain for old TT teams and having to update it is a drag and easy to get wrong.
The best simple solution I'd seen was to introduce 5k prices and vary skill costs. So for instance block, guard, dodge, MB, Claw and PO would all cost 30TV, whilst passblock and catch would be 10TV. There'd still be a 10TV premium for doubles.
This would make a standard 4 skill killstack beastman 40tv more expensive. It might encourage people to take other skills and you could allow 2 10k choices as 1 pic.
Some teams would need re-pricing and the 5k would help with that, so chaos marauders and norse linos might be 55k. |
_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 21:52 |
|
That is a nice idea Spubbbbbbba |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 22:09 |
|
Yeah that would undoubtedly work. Though I think book keeping would be harder that way for the tt noob.
Also personally I like that you have to learn which skills are priorities etc rather than being told their strength. It removes an element of discovery from the game, though it would definitely give us old timers something new to think about which would be enjoyable. I also do not think it does not address my main bugbear though obviously this is a matter of opinion, I am referring to the small roster sizes and uneven skill distribution in teams .
But I do think it would certainly balance the game more and work wonders if you enjoyed the stars and scrubs system we have now, and the other positive would be that it requires less changes elsewhere in the rules. |
_________________
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 22:21 |
|
Am I the only one who thinks that the different TV impact of doubles and stats, which was introduced with CRP, kind of sucks? It's a bit like ageing light as it spoils the former fun of rolling doubles and stat-increases.
Personally, I think the game should have 2 different types of TV/TR. One would be used for inducements and wouldn't include the doubles/stats tax, the other one would be for the overall cost of maintaining a team, would include doubles/stat tax and would need to include cash in order to prevent abuse. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 22:23 |
|
Amazon linewoman is another candidate for a cost of 55k. |
_________________
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 23:05 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Am I the only one who thinks that the different TV impact of doubles and stats, which was introduced with CRP, kind of sucks? It's a bit like ageing light as it spoils the former fun of rolling doubles and stat-increases. |
Nope I hate it too because it stops people making cool players like ag4 rat ogres and now stat increase on zombie etc are almost always ignored. However I still haven't though of another way that could possibly work tbh. Though with a system such as the one proposed on page 2 or something similar to that I think you could reduce the additional cost somewhat. Similarly with spubbbbba's system you could also adjust them by 5k or even adjust the increase in cost depending on what the stat increases too. For example ag1-2 could be 20k, 2-3 30k, 3-4 40k, anything higher 50k. Not really with those prices but you get the idea. Again, I do think that's too complex but it would probably work reasonably well using that theory. |
_________________
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2014 - 23:13 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | Amazon linewoman is another candidate for a cost of 55k. |
Hmmm... this almost lines up with my own suggestion about Amazons. That they should be removed from the game  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2014 - 03:13 |
|
| spubbbba wrote: | | I'd be wary of implementing complicated costs for players in a ruleset designed for both TT and online play. Bookkeeping can be a real pain for old TT teams and having to update it is a drag and easy to get wrong. |
Well the one thing we've surely learnt is that long term progressive BB (particularly online play) and resurrection style TT BB are 2 totally different animals when it comes to 'out of game' play.
Obviously on the field rules, they should play the same. However trying to fit them both under one big umbrella for pricing is too stifling. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
