Araznaroth
Joined: Oct 08, 2008
|
 Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 13:33 |
 
|
"I don't think that they are doing this any more.
They have gone with the 'optional' PO requires a reroll."
So is this the current option then? Had a game yesterday where a Troll failed a loner roll to squander a reroll he used for piling on! Mind you it was a stunty game, dont know if rules are different there? |
|
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 14:11 |
|
I'm more worried about the positional re-naming that, in my humble opinion, IT'S A TOTAL DISASTER.
Bloater?
Koka Kalim?
Chosen?
Anointed?
Enslaved?
damn 13yo wannabe nerds squeezing names from their zit stains on their mirrors |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 14:16 |
|
| Araznaroth wrote: | "I don't think that they are doing this any more.
They have gone with the 'optional' PO requires a reroll."
So is this the current option then? Had a game yesterday where a Troll failed a loner roll to squander a reroll he used for piling on! Mind you it was a stunty game, dont know if rules are different there? |
The news page has not changed so I'd better just say that I have no idea what is going on for official divisions.
The league updates look great though.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 4 more teams needed |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 16:16 |
|
Yeah the new piling on is in effect in Box, and I presume ranked. Heck I am now going to have to get pro for my Rogre if he reaches superstar! :O |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 16:23 |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 16:48 |
|
Seems much the more sensible option if that is the case to take the optional rule for PO.
Replacing with MB seemed like the most stupid possible choice lol. Though would it not be possible to remove PO from R and B and set it so next time a team goes through post game the players get a skill roll to make for a replacement skill? |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 16:53 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | Seems much the more sensible option if that is the case to take the optional rule for PO.
Replacing with MB seemed like the most stupid possible choice lol. Though would it not be possible to remove PO from R and B and set it so next time a team goes through post game the players get a skill roll to make for a replacement skill? |
A lot of things are possible that are not considered feasible.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 4 more teams needed |
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
 Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 16:56 |
|
| awambawamb wrote: | I'm more worried about the positional re-naming that, in my humble opinion, IT'S A TOTAL DISASTER.
Bloater?
Koka Kalim?
Chosen?
Anointed?
Enslaved?
|
Runt!!! 
Renegade human lineman xD |
|
|
MrNomad
Joined: Mar 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 17:19 |
|
Perhaps we can do this? Leave the option for the coach to keep said player. If not allow a buy back option for the player. Retire said player and get player cost returned to the team so he can be replaced with a rookie player of the same position. I know that it is going to effect a lot of teams but perhaps this is the best way to handle it? I know a lot of teams have low cash and to retire a 2 skill 90k or higher player just isn't in the cards. Also giving up 20-30k for a double skill is just as crappy. That's why I think a return of cost for the player in question is fair. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
FYI, I'm going to revise this decision. Further info coming once I've sorted the treasury problem that's posted on the front page. |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 17:40 |
|
change the topic again! |
_________________
 |
|
Cavetroll
Joined: Jan 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 17:43 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | Christer posted the stats on comment on the news regarding what other skills piling on players have. As 69% have mighty blow already that is very obviously a poor replacement choice. Strong Arm is clearly a terrible option for most and thick skull would be a weird choice.
Of the others Grab and multiple block are not working on blitzes, and Juggernaut doesn't work on blocks. Quite a lot of piling on players have block too. Break tackle is poor for the many s3 Piling on players.
Guard is arguably the best strength skill other than mighty blow so certainly is a better choice due to less skill duplication. But still 37% have it already.
Stand firm would be my main other option over Guard as it is useful, doesn't have restrictions in its use clashing with other skills, and has a small ownership on piling on players.
From Christer-
33516 players have Piling On
23285 of these have Mighty Blow (69%)
12277 have guard (37%)
3341 have break tackle (10%)
2004 have juggernaut (6%)
1829 have stand firm (5%)
1362 have grab (4%)
1359 have multiple block (4%)
1232 have thick skull (4%)
254 have strong arm (1%) |
Wow, it's hard to believe that there are more players with Piling On than have Mighty Blow. Or even if I'm reading this incorrectly, that ONLY 69% of Piling On players have Mighty Blow. I would have expected something closer to 80-85%. Are there really 10000 players that took Piling On before taking Mighty Blow? |
_________________
nerf indigo 2016 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 18:03 |
|
| Cavetroll wrote: |
Are there really 10000 players that took Piling On before taking Mighty Blow? |
Piling On is more effective than Mighty Blow if it's used every time. |
|
|
Dominik
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 18:08 |
|
The perfect solution would be indeed to let the coach select a new Strength skill after a game has been played. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2017 - 18:12 |
|
| Dominik wrote: | | The perfect solution would be indeed to let the coach select a new Strength skill after a game has been played. |
I agree about letting the coach selecting the new skill, but not necessarily a Strength skill.
Let the coaches pick from any allowed category to that player. |
|
|
|
|
All Star Bowl!
Search
