| Poll |
| How much is removing a negatrait worth? |
| 20k |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| 30k |
|
29% |
[ 19 ] |
| 40k |
|
17% |
[ 11 ] |
| 50k |
|
23% |
[ 15 ] |
| 60k |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| an apple pie |
|
20% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 64 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
It does make sense but maybe I didn't explain it well? You're saying that from LRB4 to now their ability has increased but their cost has increased even more so, lowering their 'value'.
I was saying that while I agree, I'd be ok with the increased cost if they lost Loner. Losing loner would increase their ability even more over 4th edition, and their 'value' would be better in line with their current pricing. Is that better?
In other words, while I think the current ogre is overpriced I think he'd be worth that price without Loner.
@Matthueycamo: Maybe this is just differing philosophies then, but I don't think Stars should be unique over Legend players built by teams. Legends are meant to be the best of the best. I'd like for ALL stars (apart from weapons etc.) to be theoretically possible to build through normal team advancement. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 12:39 |
 
|
Well the bottom line is big guys were used more in LRB4. This is due to the price hike for big guys and more concern on saving TV.
So we need to reduce the price and reduce this fat saving crap that's destroying the game.
If you do both of those, the game is better; diversity is better; and more in game actions have a result on who wins.
So many of these 'lets improve the game' are due to the impact of TV management. (not saying this is or isn't, as it's an old ruling). |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 13:20 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | It does make sense but maybe I didn't explain it well? You're saying that from LRB4 to now their ability has increased but their cost has increased even more so, lowering their 'value'.
I was saying that while I agree, I'd be ok with the increased cost if they lost Loner. Losing loner would increase their ability even more over 4th edition, and their 'value' would be better in line with their current pricing. Is that better?
In other words, while I think the current ogre is overpriced I think he'd be worth that price without Loner.
@Matthueycamo: Maybe this is just differing philosophies then, but I don't think Stars should be unique over Legend players built by teams. Legends are meant to be the best of the best. I'd like for ALL stars (apart from weapons etc.) to be theoretically possible to build through normal team advancement. |
It think the opposite, the stars are legends. So legendary they can go freelance to earn masses of money playing a match for any team that will pay of a race they will play for. Legends built are still only legend enough to carry on playing for the same team. Being able to build them party defeats the point in having them in the game as something different and also makes them less of a star quality. Secondly to add some extra variety and fun when down TV. These things are all devalued if regular players can get the same skill sets. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 13:23 |
|
Going with loner, I would make removing it a normal priced at a double. That would party solve some of the TV issue with them and make them more viable as some Big Guys quite quickly run out of normal skills that are useful to take. Would make it less valid to fire a player just because they get 2-3 skills and no double. Making it a double or stat only makes this problem worse. Whilst also keeping the flavour of the other neg traits. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | It think the opposite, the stars are legends. So legendary they can go freelance to earn masses of money playing a match for any team that will pay of a race they will play for. Legends built are still only legend enough to carry on playing for the same team. Being able to build them party defeats the point in having them in the game as something different and also makes them less of a star quality. Secondly to add some extra variety and fun when down TV. These things are all devalued if regular players can get the same skill sets. |
Yeah, like I said, differing philosophies. That's fine. Agree to disagree there I suppose.
I liked that in 3rd edition Griff was a Human Blitzer who had rolled +Ma, +Str, +Ag and 4 doubles (when there were 7 skill rolls). I think if you roll those Star Player rolls you deserve to 'build a Griff'. But then when I started playing you could just buy Star Players and stick them in the team. I'm not a fan of this whole Mercenary Stars idea in general. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 15:43 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | It think the opposite, the stars are legends. So legendary they can go freelance to earn masses of money playing a match for any team that will pay of a race they will play for. Legends built are still only legend enough to carry on playing for the same team. Being able to build them party defeats the point in having them in the game as something different and also makes them less of a star quality. Secondly to add some extra variety and fun when down TV. These things are all devalued if regular players can get the same skill sets. |
Yeah, like I said, differing philosophies. That's fine. Agree to disagree there I suppose.
I liked that in 3rd edition Griff was a Human Blitzer who had rolled +Ma, +Str, +Ag and 4 doubles (when there were 7 skill rolls). I think if you roll those Star Player rolls you deserve to 'build a Griff'. But then when I started playing you could just buy Star Players and stick them in the team. I'm not a fan of this whole Mercenary Stars idea in general. |
fortunately, rostered stars aren't allowed anymore |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| zakatan wrote: | | fortunately, rostered stars aren't allowed anymore |
Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on that one tbh. Having rostered stars was cool, but they often dwarfed the abilities of your other players (and didn't gain SPPs). I don't like the fluff of having them just turn up and play a random game for a random (underdog) team though. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 18:17 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Well the bottom line is big guys were used more in LRB4. This is due to the price hike for big guys and more concern on saving TV.
So we need to reduce the price and reduce this fat saving crap that's destroying the game.
If you do both of those, the game is better; diversity is better; and more in game actions have a result on who wins.
So many of these 'lets improve the game' are due to the impact of TV management. (not saying this is or isn't, as it's an old ruling). |
I liked TR better than TV, and TS better than TR. TS requires a complicated formula that makes it inviable to compute for tabletop players.
What I believe many rulesets are trying to do is to take the best of 3 worlds: different value for different skills, cummulative value of skills, discount for injuries...
The problem with TV and TS (individual cost of skills) is that they encourage min-maxing in a very perverse way. Flat cost of skills, no matter the quality, doesn't penalize non standard builds in the same way and doesn't make a +st+st lino a liability, but a huge asset. Of course, there are ways to game the flat cost of skill-ups too, but I think they are healthier.
I guess this is an entirely different discussion, though. |
_________________
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 18:17 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Well the bottom line is big guys were used more in LRB4. This is due to the price hike for big guys and more concern on saving TV.
So we need to reduce the price and reduce this fat saving crap that's destroying the game. |
This is probably correct. However MJ is also correct that the other way to improve pricing is to increase effectiveness. To me removing Loner is going too far though - it serves a good fluff purpose, and if you allow Pro to counter it you've then given a good solid doubles option that makes fluff sense too. Arguably the Ogres on an Ogre team are simply Ogres with Pro. Ogres on Human teams didn't make the Ogre cut (because what Ogre in his right "mind" would choose to play with humans if he had a choice?!).
Me, I would look for other ways to make big guys more effective. The obvious one is simply damage. It is silly that with one skill, dwarfs or human blitzers or stormvermin or heck even snotlings can have their hits be just as devastating as an ogre's. That's nuts. Big guys need something unique, at least one thing actually. My ideas are:
o starting MB but from Extraordinary, which stacks with other damage skills they might take (I would split MB into inj and av skills, in S and G respectively, but that's another discussion).
o a Piling On that becomes more effective with higher Strength (as a proxy for weight).
o bonuses to av and/or inj that trigger when more than one Pow are rolled.
You might also have to lower their prices even with one or more of the above improvements. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:01 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Well the bottom line is big guys were used more in LRB4. This is due to the price hike for big guys and more concern on saving TV.
So we need to reduce the price and reduce this fat saving crap that's destroying the game.
If you do both of those, the game is better; diversity is better; and more in game actions have a result on who wins.
So many of these 'lets improve the game' are due to the impact of TV management. (not saying this is or isn't, as it's an old ruling). |
I liked TR better than TV, and TS better than TR. TS requires a complicated formula that makes it inviable to compute for tabletop players.
What I believe many rulesets are trying to do is to take the best of 3 worlds: different value for different skills, cummulative value of skills, discount for injuries...
The problem with TV and TS (individual cost of skills) is that they encourage min-maxing in a very perverse way. Flat cost of skills, no matter the quality, doesn't penalize non standard builds in the same way and doesn't make a +st+st lino a liability, but a huge asset. Of course, there are ways to game the flat cost of skill-ups too, but I think they are healthier.
I guess this is an entirely different discussion, though. |
No that probably just leads to min maxing in a different way. Namely firing players that don't get stats or doubles by a certain point. Bad enough there are a few player types that this already happens to without it becoming the MO for the whole roster. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:05 |
|
| fidius wrote: | | o starting MB but from Extraordinary, which stacks with other damage skills they might take (I would split MB into inj and av skills, in S and G respectively, but that's another discussion). |
Some similar thoughts are considered in rulesets, which include the Mighty Blow (II), that would result in a +2/+0, +1/+1 or +0/+2 according to the situation.
| fidius wrote: | | o a Piling On that becomes more effective with higher Strength (as a proxy for weight). |
This was the case in earlier rulesets. Armor roll would add the ST of the player. It made more sense but it proved too powerful. Maybe add ST/2 rounded up to the armor roll or something like that would make it.
| fidius wrote: | | o bonuses to av and/or inj that trigger when more than one Pow are rolled. |
Interesting. I've always been kinda disappointed when a double pow doesn't make any damage. Just don't apply this on half-dice rolls |
_________________
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:15 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | No that probably just leads to min maxing in a different way. Namely firing players that don't get stats or doubles by a certain point. Bad enough there are a few player types that this already happens to without it becoming the MO for the whole roster. |
It definitely led to a different way of min-max, but it's not that players without doubles/stats don't get fired in a TV/TS environment. Or even good healthy players used to get fired just because they were too much of a burden for the team balance. I myself did fire my first legend without even playing a game because his very presence made me lose games.
Aging kinda made the job to make sure that healthy stars were a rarity. The mechanic was very frustrating, but it did a good job. I'd maybe go for a kind of aging that halts player development so that you know that there will not be more skill rolls for that players, instead of applying a crippling injury that may well end up retiring the player.
Surely such a system would be abused too. Get the perfect DP that never skills because he's too dumb to get a second skill!
Anyway, I'd like to get back to the negatrait discussion now  |
_________________
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:26 |
|
| fidius wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Well the bottom line is big guys were used more in LRB4. This is due to the price hike for big guys and more concern on saving TV.
So we need to reduce the price and reduce this fat saving crap that's destroying the game. |
This is probably correct. However MJ is also correct that the other way to improve pricing is to increase effectiveness. To me removing Loner is going too far though - it serves a good fluff purpose, and if you allow Pro to counter it you've then given a good solid doubles option that makes fluff sense too. Arguably the Ogres on an Ogre team are simply Ogres with Pro. Ogres on Human teams didn't make the Ogre cut (because what Ogre in his right "mind" would choose to play with humans if he had a choice?!).
Me, I would look for other ways to make big guys more effective. The obvious one is simply damage. It is silly that with one skill, dwarfs or human blitzers or stormvermin or heck even snotlings can have their hits be just as devastating as an ogre's. That's nuts. Big guys need something unique, at least one thing actually. My ideas are:
o starting MB but from Extraordinary, which stacks with other damage skills they might take (I would split MB into inj and av skills, in S and G respectively, but that's another discussion).
o a Piling On that becomes more effective with higher Strength (as a proxy for weight).
o bonuses to av and/or inj that trigger when more than one Pow are rolled.
You might also have to lower their prices even with one or more of the above improvements. |
Giving CPOMB minos stupid amounts of killy with a MB or PO that is even better than now? It's not like the teams that can destroy all others at high TV need something to make them kill even more.
I don't think those suggestions have really been thought through properly since their main action would be to give the already killy monster teams even more kill above most of the rest.
The level of CAS big guys can cause is not the issue, it is the price against them failing their neg trait in a key turn and resulting in a lost match.
As for the Ogre V Human Ogre loner thing could replace Bonehead on the human Ogre with Really Stupid. Ogre Ogres are then still more reliable and the Human Ogre is still more reliable with no loner but they are not the same. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:43 |
|
Hi Zakatan,
just saw you mention double Mighty Blow. A special BGs-only damage skill would be cool! But back when creating PCRP+, we did the math for several versions of piling on and claw, including double Mighty Blow. I don't have the stats anymore, but IIRC it was surprisingly powerful. Just saying.
Something inspired by Fidius thinking could be: add +1 to the armor roll for -each- die that would knock down the target.
Or Crush (E): If you roll doubles on the armor roll, you automatically break armor.
Just thinking out loud 
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 19:49 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | fidius wrote: | | o starting MB but from Extraordinary, which stacks with other damage skills they might take (I would split MB into inj and av skills, in S and G respectively, but that's another discussion). |
Some similar thoughts are considered in rulesets, which include the Mighty Blow (II), that would result in a +2/+0, +1/+1 or +0/+2 according to the situation. |
I'm of the view that MB is already too good, particularly v AV7, which is why I would split it up. But it needs to stay on big guys I think.
| zakatan wrote: | | fidius wrote: | | o a Piling On that becomes more effective with higher Strength (as a proxy for weight). |
This was the case in earlier rulesets. Armor roll would add the ST of the player. It made more sense but it proved too powerful. Maybe add ST/2 rounded up to the armor roll or something like that would make it. |
There are a million ways to skin that cat, you'd just have to land on one that made sense.
| zakatan wrote: | | fidius wrote: | | o bonuses to av and/or inj that trigger when more than one Pow are rolled. |
Interesting. I've always been kinda disappointed when a double pow doesn't make any damage. Just don't apply this on half-dice rolls |
Rage (S): This player’s violent nature tempts him to pursue his opponent even when it is not tactically sound to do so. If you choose not to follow up a block with this player, roll d6: on a 1, the player fails to control himself and must follow up if able. In addition, the player’s unbridled anger sometimes results in devastating hits: if more than one Defender Down die is rolled on the block dice, the opponent is stunned -- skip the Armour Roll and roll for Injury as normal. If three Defender Down results are rolled, you may also add +1 to the Injury Roll.
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | Giving CPOMB minos stupid amounts of killy with a MB or PO that is even better than now? It's not like the teams that can destroy all others at high TV need something to make them kill even more. |
Like all of my suggestions, I'm assuming a rules overhaul, sorry I didn't make that clear. PO is weaker, Claw doesn't stack, MB is no longer available as a selection... Pact and Chaos get re-worked... Dogs and cats living together... Mass hysteria.
Anyway sorry Zak. Ahem. Negatrait removal. I'm against it and voted pie.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
