fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
 Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 08:12 |
 
|
The tools we have to apply to the problem however are too blunt. Dodge as a skill is too good, and too variable in terms of value depending on AG -- and cost increments too wide. The only way to tune it properly is to define the increments down a bit. So, move to 5gp pricing and split skills up so they're not worth so much in a lump. However I disagree that variable pricing is a good idea. The game would get too complicated too quickly. I think you do your best with evening out the skills' effects, then set the price the same across the board (15k I think makes sense vs 50k Human Lineman value). It sounds daunting but I really don't think it's that much work. |
|
|
Badoek
Joined: May 17, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 08:15 |
|
Fend for women is the fluffiest skill in this entire game. It's one of the core skills ANY woman in the world will learn: how to fend off men. Dodging men is the advanced level (read 6 or 16 SPPs). It gets my vote!  |
_________________
 |
|
Catalyst32
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 09:51 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | THe main problem is not dodge. The main problem is underpriced dodge. Much easier to solve balance issues with price than anything else, as price has no fluff, while stats do have. So the best tool to max out fluff, and balance is pricing. |
Price has Fluff.
How easy is it to convince a Goblin to take part in some mayhem? How numerous are Goblins? 40k
How numerous are typical Orcs, Humans, Skaven, etc. of the Lineman variety? 50k
What about the dying out races? The races that don't breed like Vermin? Elves, Dorfs... How easy is it to convince an Elf that might have 500 to 1,000 more years left in his life to risk all of that for a game? Thus... 70K for the cheapest typically (except Pro).
How about rare species like Bull Centaurs, Vampires, etc.?
The Fluff fits the price quite often. |
|
|
Catalyst32
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 09:55 |
|
| Badoek wrote: | | Fend for women is the fluffiest skill in this entire game. It's one of the core skills ANY woman in the world will learn: how to fend off men. Dodging men is the advanced level (read 6 or 16 SPPs). It gets my vote! |
In my experience most women appreciate a good Piling On. But maybe that is because I have paired that skill with Tackle, Mighty Blow, Dauntless and Dirty Player. |
|
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 10:24 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | bghandras wrote: | | THe main problem is not dodge. The main problem is underpriced dodge. Much easier to solve balance issues with price than anything else, as price has no fluff, while stats do have. So the best tool to max out fluff, and balance is pricing. |
60k linewomen?
would that be enough? |
that would also mean raising the price for norsemen.
and for human linos as well (no skill but +1av)
get along with it: you get either a useful skill "right here, right now" but a swimming costume for protection, or mediocrity and a slightly better suit. |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| awambawamb wrote: | | Roland wrote: |
60k linewomen?
would that be enough? |
that would also mean raising the price for norsemen.
and for human linos as well (no skill but +1av)
get along with it: you get either a useful skill "right here, right now" but a swimming costume for protection, or mediocrity and a slightly better suit. |
Not necessarily. Dodge is a double for a linewoman while Block is a normal skill for a Norse lineman. The linewoman could easily justify a 10k increased cost. With Blodge they would both then be 80k |
|
|
Macabeo
Joined: Feb 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 13:13 |
|
I see. To me Fend, HMP and Wrestle are not very exotic skills, but I get that you may want something closer to the Human roster in terms of skill. Thanks for the feedback!
| MattDakka wrote: | | A Blitzer with Wrestle doesn't make any sense, a Blitzer must have Block to fulfil properly his role, i.e. guarding team mates and hurting opponent players. |
Hmmm debatable... I'd say that in theory Blitzers are sackers, Blockers are guarders and both can be damage dealing players. I understand that Wrestle can be seen as a weird choice given that Block for Blitzers is such a staple across the rosters, though.
As for your changes, Wrestle for Linewomen could be fine, but 7337 Block, Dodge GAS 100k Blitzers are a bit too powerful at low TV in my opinion, and may overshadow other positionals much like DE Blitzers do right now.
| fidius wrote: | | I think Amazons can only be fixed in the context of significant rules changes. For example, if Dodge and Block were each separated into their component parts you could still spam defensive dodge but give the "dodge" Dodge to catchers (plus MV7), then give blitzers only the offensive Block and not the defensive. Blanket A access is a good idea. Like the Krox idea too. Don't care for blanket Fend, Wrestle, or HMP. Would keep blitzers to GS. Would also split 0-4 Blitzers into 0-2 Blitzers and 0-2 Huntresses, giving the former "dodge" Dodge and the latter "modified Claw" & MV7. |
Changing Block and Dodge is huge... and I'm yet too see an overall convincing proposal with roster fixes and all.
A claw positional, as in Pygmies, is a good idea. However, that would mean changes in the miniatures, which would not please many people.
| Several authors wrote: | | ... changes in the pricing of skills/players... |
I'm afraid I must disagree with you guys here. The following are the flaws of the design of the current roster:
- Strong at low TV
- Weak at high TV
- Very match up dependent
- Bland, some unappealing positionals.
Tweaking the costs may only fix the first issue, the rest are still there. Mindless Dodge spam *is* the problem in my opinion, and Amazons deserve a treatment similar to what Norse had in the transition from LRB4 to LRB5. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 13:44 |
|
Are they that weak at high TV though? I think their weakness is over rated. Sure they aren't good, but I don't think they're horribly weak. Small roster syndrome is a problem for them though.
One of the answers, and an answer to another roster is just have blanket ag 4 catchers. They were in 2nd ed anyway (bar fling catchers that were ag5). |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 14:03 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | (bar fling catchers that were ag5). |
now THAT would be awesome to have back! |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Are they that weak at high TV though? I think their weakness is over rated. Sure they aren't good, but I don't think they're horribly weak. Small roster syndrome is a problem for them though.
One of the answers, and an answer to another roster is just have blanket ag 4 catchers. They were in 2nd ed anyway (bar fling catchers that were ag5). |
I think something like that would work well, although comparing to 2nd edition is always tricky as stats are from lot wider range (I think all Dwarves had strength 5?)
I think if changing the roster in isolation it'd be something like this:
Linewoman: Increased cost to 60k
Thrower: Increased cost to 80k (in line with lino, plus skill + P access)
Catcher: Increase Ma to 7; Increase cost to 90k (in line with above + stat increase)
Blitzer: Increase Av to 8; Cost remains at 90k
The increased costs should help the Low TV problem. The increased armour on the Blitzers helps at high TV. The positionals are a little more interesting with variations in stat lines and mixed skill access across the 3 (which was already there). |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 15:19 |
|
| Macabeo wrote: |
Hmmm debatable... I'd say that in theory Blitzers are sackers, Blockers are guarders and both can be damage dealing players. I understand that Wrestle can be seen as a weird choice given that Block for Blitzers is such a staple across the rosters, though.
As for your changes, Wrestle for Linewomen could be fine, but 7337 Block, Dodge GAS 100k Blitzers are a bit too powerful at low TV in my opinion, and may overshadow other positionals much like DE Blitzers do right now. |
Blitzers with S access are not sackers, they are on the pitch to hurt opponents, and since Amazons have no Blockers they fulfil the role of Guards too.
Linewomen fulfil the sacker role well thanks to Wrestle.
About the Blitzers being too powerful: they cost 100k in the roster I suggested and have AV 7, so they can get hurt quite easily, and if you compare them to DE Blitzers, they have AG 4 and AV 8, so 2 better stats than Amazon Blitzers.
Once the DE Blitzer gets Dodge, the AG 4 makes a great difference. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %18, %2015 - %15:%Jun; edited 1 time in total |
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 15:27 |
|
They cost 90k. But yeah, Zons are a cookie cutter team that can be abused at low TV through minmaxing or recycling teams when their TV is too high, however they're also quite a challenging team at mid/high TV unless you only pick opponents without Tackle or MB.
Zons do not win majors, you can (and do!) avoid minmaxed zons in Ranked, they have become a secondary team in the Box, so really, I don't understand the need for a change. Except maybe for those 1100 TV NAF tournaments, but then you'd also have to change several other teams like Lizards.
My 2 cents. |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2015 - 23:24 |
|
The issue's tricky, after some thought about it, here is my final thoughts.
The main point is that it's papering over cracks. The issue here isn't so much zons, as higher TV shows. But TV itself. What's the point in fixing a roster for a problem elsewhere?
Got right to the problem, fix TV for the perpetual environment.
Point 2, is as I said before. Were the cookie cutter teams a good idea? Both sat a little oddly, next to all the other teams and was it a good idea or lazy design? I'm kind of between the 2 there. I did love old Norse a lot though. So maybe they do need a redesign. However I really do not like the CRP approach to team updates. I love what they did with the 3 new rosters, but the updated rosters had a lot of new positionals with a lot of new skills.
Ok, I think it was fine to invent a 'runner'. However a runner should be a runner, like a catcher is a catcher. Not a mock thrower on DE and a mock catcher on Norse. Let's be clear about what this new position is, and it's potential for other rosters. Make the position specific not a plaster job. And this is what I think the OP has done, copied this style.
I think the idea of keeping players to a strict pricing policy is poppycock. Here we have the opportunity to balance rosters, without affecting the actual roster. The pricing rules that Galak set out, do not work for. An example could be a Skink for example. If you gave a skink to a Dwarf team and an Elf team, would he be of equal value? No. And this is the case here with a dodge lineman.
So as I said before, I'm in the change the pricing camp and the linewoman is the most obvious candidate. What would be of benefit is if we had the 5k increments. It gives us a lot more control over our environment. The fact that the game has become so specialized now, it's kind of screaming out for this sort of control. You can see from the Stunty division, where it was introduced how beneficial 5k increments actually are. |
|
|
delusional
Joined: Jan 18, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2015 - 01:13 |
|
I love this roster idea.
You have a thrower that is a little weird, a linewoman with fend, which would make Zons have the PITA factor that they need to keep. The catchers are a little overpowered though...
Wressle so fits the Amazon fluff.
"Ok, I think it was fine to invent a 'runner'. However a runner should be a runner". Harvestmouse you are right. How about you make the runner ma7 but with sure feet. Loose catch on the runner, but give them diving catch instead. Dodge is a must.
Here is what I would do:
0-4 Runner: 7237 Dodge, Diving Catch, Sure feet GA 60k
Fast, lean, some catch.
0-4 Blitzer: 7337 Wrestle, Dodge, Dauntless GAS 100k
Here is a blitzer that is scary, but not too scary. A blitzer should be able to take players down when needed. To me Dauntless makes more sense for this then block (which should go on blockers.
Alternatively make those positionals 0-2 and add Amazon blockers:
0-2 Blocker: 5338 Block, Dodge, Fend These Amazon women inhabit shopping mall isles and guard kindergartens. They are well honed at stopping any kind of person or thing that tries to get past. |
|
|
bigbullies
Joined: Feb 20, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2015 - 01:54 |
|
I have an idea
Lets leave the roster alone !
Lets play them if we like them and play against them if we dont !
I play zons and i dont want any skill changes nor do i want a big guy or ag 5 or armour 8 HUMANS ARE BORING !!
That is all. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
