fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
 Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 02:43 |
 
|
My solution for PO which I've posted a couple times around TFF and here is:
1) Can be used after either Armour or Injury, but player has to back up to the Armour roll.
2) Second Armour roll gets +(ST differential) (+unused MB, but not Claw). If this roll:
2a) succeeds: roll Injury as normal.
2b) fails: turnover, roll Armour on self with no mods, and Injury if necessary.
This would effectively make the skill more useful to high ST and high AV players (big guys), but still available to suicidal ST3 and AV7 players for end-of-turn mayhem. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 08:33 |
|
I'd like to be able to remove negatraits on doubles again.
Fling trees without take root, mmm... |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 09:21 |
|
Removing negatraits sounds like a very interesting improvement. If Morg's lost bonehead, so should others. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 09:56 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | PO has a counter in the ruleset. It's called fend. Stop going overboard. |
Hehehe Chainsaw made a funny!
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Why does everybody thing that claw/po needs to MASSIVE nerf? It's only just slightly OP. If you destroy it completely, then bash teams will be RUINED. |
I disagree about PO being 'slightly' OP. Possibly as a POMB it is. Having 4 plus CPOMBers on 1 team though, is massively OP.
Before you start spouting win stats though, this isn't what I mean. Average CAS rates are ok in CRP, a little heavy. What is broken is what % of these comes from CPOMBing. It's broken because they account for too many.
For me (apart from the awful fluff aspect) claw is more than fine (could do with a few tweaks, like Treemen).
The problem with this ruleset for us is LRB 4 was working pretty well. So why go crazy and change a massive amount of stuff without extensive testing? It just doesn't make sense, and for me the ruleset suffers for it.
I think mutation teams can still cause a lot of cas with claw/mb, and still be just as competitive. Or competitive in how they should have been (not a one trick pony).
Giving PO to big guys only, doesn't pull the mutation rosters up short. They all have access to a big guy.
What should be looked and (and what they should have done and had every opportunity to do so) is to look at distributing the cas a little.
Buff fouling a little in someway, and something I've been testing (not 100% successfully) is missed games. Players could miss more than one game, but not take a roster slot for example.
Anyway there are a lot of ways the cas causing could be balanced out with 'little tweaks'.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | I'm curious, how many Leagues have been ruined by Clawpomb? WIL doesn't seem to have any issues with it. That's the longest running league as far as I know? |
Again you are confusing winning (where the combo is as you say only a little OP and damage causing). WIL hasn't been ruined as they have clever restrictions in place to prevent any race becoming too prevalent.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | We're trying to fix a niche problem where in an open environment over 100+ games somebody can build a team with a few clawpombers in it and thus everybody panics. |
Well we're not fixing anything. We have no power to do that. It's a problem though, Box shows us that, by how big the fish grow and why they avoid the deep water. The issue goes around and around is by far the most popular subject/gripe on the site. I wouldn't call that 'a niche problem'. Even if it is over-hyped (which it is of course).
| Chainsaw wrote: |
Well I flat out disagree. You are overbuffing big guys and ruining the ruleset. |
But you don't disagree that big guys are too weak. As you aren't taking them yourself! (Ok you do take them a lot more than most).
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=698889 No sign of a big guy here.
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?op=view&showmatches=1&team_id=692122 You surprisingly take one, but as the least valuable player.
And your Pact only use on of the 3 big guys. Clearly you are agreeing with the site that big guys (particularly on Chaos teams) aren't worth the money.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Piling On is a strength skill. You can't make it a Big Guy skill and invent an whole new category. That's just dumb. |
Why is it? It's new of course and has never been done, that doesn't make it dumb.
The benefits are 3 fold.
1. The combo becomes far less common.
2. It makes big guys more appealing.
3. It doesn't adjust the skill in anyway. There are too many opinions on what exactly needs tweaking, so this way it's not tweaked at all.
Ok, I see JF's point; and I'm ok with it. But just because you don't like this new skill giving rule, doesn't make it dumb out of hand and should be dismissed.
| Chainsaw wrote: | | If you make it available to only ST5+ players, you make the game worse. You're all too obtuse to see it. |
Because you won't enjoy it as much? Again, we need balance and you gain balance by small adjustments. The game needs variety. If you remove something, and it's needed, you give something back. However do it in a way that gives more options; not a blanket POMB is the whole game CAS balancer. Now that is dumb.
I'll also argue our obtuseness is balanced out by your 'Happy as Larryness'. It's clear you are thriving in this environment.
You tend prefer heavy teams or CAS causing teams. You (unlike a lot of coaches) are doing much better in CRP than you did in LRB 4. I'll give you, you play a large variety of teams, and you are using the rosters to good effect. However you play bash heavy, even with lighter teams. So yes, you particularly would be affected by this rule, not so much the ruleset. I'm not so obtuse, I can't see that
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Ripping out piling on is not a tweak. It flat out changes the game. You will then be faced with a whole lot of new balance problems that you haven't foreseen because you are so het up about this one issue (clawpomb). |
Well there you go, a qualifying statement, rather than mud chucking. So you do admit that the skill Pile On is game changing and not a niche issue! It's my opinion that you're now so used to how things are, you fail to see how it has upset the balance of things. Also that playing mainly in ranked, puts you in a huge protected bubble of sorts.
Personally, I don't think doing this to PO would give balance problems. Most teams have easy access to a POMBer. So they balance. Mutation teams still hit high AV teams hard (no change to claw). So it's the balance to high AG teams. Well remember by not taking PO, you have access to another skill. Most likely we would see different combos to combat them, more tackle as one example.
Anyway, you may be right. It may upset the balance of the rules (and if it does, well that's a design flaw for putting too much weight on one skill). So we tweak again.
This is how you should progress by tweaking. I will never understand why the BBRC ripped out and gutted so much of LRB4 on a hunch. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 09:57 |
|
Removing neg-traits is interesting. However it proved to be too powerful. Particularly with Vamps and the Demon rosters. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 10:29 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Removing neg-traits is interesting. However it proved to be too powerful. Particularly with Vamps and the Demon rosters. |
Should be big- guys only then. Fixed!
Another thing, remove loner on all big guys.
They already have RS, BH and WA.
Let big guys be a part of the team! |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 10:48 |
|
This is essentially a ClawPOMB thread now. ClawPOMB chat should filter into that one thread, please. I'll leave this open for now, but please go back to the original topic. |
|
|
delusional
Joined: Jan 18, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 11:45 |
|
I have always thought that the problem with CPOMB is POMB.
Think about it, if you are an AV7 wood elf. You get mb against you, so AV6 and this is then rerolled against you! 0.584 % success and a reroll to break armor. Then people wonder why all the agility teams have disappeared and the blocky teams dominate!
The only reason why people complain about CPOMB is that their AV9 lino suddenely becomes av8, then with MB becomes AV7 and vulnerable like a Wood elf. C is fine, just levels the playing field.
PO is a fairly big problem. I think it should only be used once a turn for starters. 4 or 5 guys piling on means 10 armor rerolls, at a possible 58.4% success rate is pretty team decimating.
Another idea is to make PO similiar to a fouling action. While your guy could take out another player, they may be removed from the game. This would at least keep side numbers rather equal but allow the PO heavy team to take out critical players as needed.
Lastly on Big guy PO only, it would restrict PO's to 1 or 2 characters who can't get up as easily. It makes sense and possibly will reinvigorate the Ogre team. But it's still not a good idea.... IMHO, only allow Big guys to get MB! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 11:49 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | Removing neg-traits is interesting. However it proved to be too powerful. Particularly with Vamps and the Demon rosters. |
Should be big- guys only then. Fixed!
Another thing, remove loner on all big guys.
They already have RS, BH and WA.
Let big guys be a part of the team! |
I dunno, I kind of like loner. It replaced big guy, and big guy is what makes big guys, big guys!
I see a conflict with the Ogre and halfling rosters though, in that they don't/no longer have it. However I think it adds a tactical element.
Price reduction, Pile On their skill only for me. I'd be on the fence with neg trait removals on a double. However..............how about injury removal on doubles too? With no increase in TV!
Right now injuries are another problem, in that they don't work very well. Too many injured players are sacked out of hand, which means essentially the injury counts as a kill. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 12:19 |
|
AV9 becomes av7 with Claw delusional. As does AV10. |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 14:24 |
|
The problem (widely agreed?) now is that big guys are not worth their cost. The solution needs to address that, and for me I prefer the idea of making big-guys better rather than cheaper. They should be expensive, powerful but unreliable - clearly differentiated from "normal" players.
As such allowing them to do things that other players cant is not in my view a problem. However, before we go too far with this - who are the big guys? Ive included I think everything that has ever been considered as a big guy in at least one rule set, but I wouldnt be suprised if Ive missed one...
Ogres
Trolls
Minotaurs
Yetis
Tomb Guardians
Treemen
Kroxigors
Beasts of Nurgle
Bull Centaurs??
Mummies
Vampires??
I think one of the things with this discussion is that people focus on Ogres and maybe forget Khemri ie suddenly get a lot more powerful if TGs are immune to claw. Maybe that isnt a bad thing? After all decay is pretty good at killing them regularly.
So, the solution has to be suitable for all big-guys. I still like the idea of claw immunity though, as these guys shoudl be very hard to remove from the pitch.
In regards to skills I agree that it sucks you kind of have to roll a double (or stat+) for it to be worth taking a BG to legend. Although you could say the same thing about stunties... Maybe the solution here is to guarantee that the legend skill roll is a double? |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 15:05 |
|
Loner should stay imo. Cost should be reduced by at least 10k apart from kroxigor, troll and treeman.
Loner should work like this though-
Rookie needs a 6+ to rr
Experienced 5+
Veteran 4+
Emerging star 3+
Super star 2+
Legend free to use rrs.
This way there is actually good reason to try and make a legend big guy.
Claw should be -2 to a minimum of 7, plus av boost is added after the claw modifier. PO should not stack. This reduces its power with the other skills to around 37% iirc. From the ridiculous 58%.
Fouling should be buffed and regen and apo should not be allowed on crowd surf. This all balances the bash a bit more evenly among all races.
Big guy negatrait removal should probably be possible fluff wise, though I'm not fussed either way really. If it was allowed it should only be on a double 6 or maybe an 11 skill roll.
And done  |
_________________
 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 16:40 |
|
A possible Claw nerf could be:
Claw reduces opponent's AV by blocker's ST - opponent's ST + 1 (to a minimum of 7)
So a Stormvermin blocking a beastman would reduce AV by 1 to 7
A CW blocking an Ogre would reduce AV by 0
I mean, it's understandable that claw cuts through armor, but how can a puny underworld goblin claw take 3 points of armor of a treeman? .. poor fluff |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 16:51 |
|
A lot of these suggestions are far too complex. A good rule is a simple rule, because most BB players don't possess a degree in quantum mechanics.
I mean this for example......
| Balle2000 wrote: | A possible Claw nerf could be:
Claw reduces opponent's AV by blocker's ST - opponent's ST + 1 (to a minimum of 7)
So a Stormvermin blocking a beastman would reduce AV by 1 to 7
A CW blocking an Ogre would reduce AV by 0 |
When should a rule become an equation? NEVER, that's when.
I would also ask Purplegoo to not punish the whole thread because coaches like Balle2000 can't stop their deluded anti clawPOMB crusade in every forum post they throw in.....This is about buffing big guys, not nerfing claw you tool. |
_________________
Last edited by Calcium on %b %16, %2014 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2014 - 16:54 |
|
Getting back on subject, I love this suggestion
| Roland wrote: | | I'd like to be able to remove negatraits on doubles again. |
bearing in mind I think this should only apply to big guys, and certainly not other ST4/5 players. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
