calon
Joined: Oct 03, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 17:32 |
 
|
Thought i would raise this from responses in another Post.
I think that it would be a good idea to cap legend players to stop them crippling teams, still allow them to die or get injured + gain TD CP IT cas MVP but their overall ssp would remain the same.
If no Please leave your reasons. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 17:40 |
|
I voted Capped.
But it won't be implemented, I fear. |
_________________
 |
|
Jazz
Joined: Oct 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 17:45 |
|
I say Cap them.
The reason?
SPP are taking into account with your TR to show the advancement of a team. To show the TS. A legend no longer advances. Thus, the indication of his advancement, his SPP, should also remain the same.
Like you said: havind legends with 600+ SPP only cripples the team and it incorrectly burdens your TR/TS.
Regards,
Jazz |
|
|
calon
Joined: Oct 03, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 17:46 |
|
i know but worth getting a result on it  |
|
|
Candlejack
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 17:54 |
|
well.. if you have a legend that gets THAT many spp that it's significantly increases your TR that much that you get too many disadvantages then it's a sign of bad coaching/team management imo... a legend player should not score all the time or do all comps or has to be the cas master.. he has to support the other players be there to protect the ball carrier or help to get a hit on the opponent ball carrier.. the OTHER players should do the spp actions.. so either use your legends wisely or retire them.. so i think capping would be a bad idea |
_________________
--
The Sanity Resort |
|
xen7ric
Joined: Jan 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:00 |
|
I have to disagree with Jazz.
The reason you should not cap the SPP's is the same reason that aging was introduced. BloodBowl builds in incentives to replace players. Most players need replacing around 100 SPP's but leaving Legends uncapped so that they keep raising your TR is the incentive to replace them. You should never have an immortal player (and since he will always have the Apoth he'll be hard to kill if you cherrypick your games to protect him).
The only way round it now is to try to slow the superstar getting SPP's so that you can keep him in longer. |
|
|
angelface
Joined: Mar 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:03 |
|
All modificatons that help to make forever living bb players are ainst the spirit off BB... If one reaches the level of legend, then congrats, job done, goodbye, lets see the new generation. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:04 |
|
| xen7ric wrote: | I have to disagree with Jazz.
The reason you should not cap the SPP's is the same reason that aging was introduced. BloodBowl builds in incentives to replace players. Most players need replacing around 100 SPP's but leaving Legends uncapped so that they keep raising your TR is the incentive to replace them. You should never have an immortal player (and since he will always have the Apoth he'll be hard to kill if you cherrypick your games to protect him).
The only way round it now is to try to slow the superstar getting SPP's so that you can keep him in longer. |
bingo!!!!! no player lives forever!!! |
|
|
xen7ric
Joined: Jan 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:06 |
|
Wow! People agreeing with me... I feel so special!  |
|
|
thesquig
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:12 |
|
We play LRB in ranked. This isnt LRB so therefor it probably wont get implimented. Its a nice idea though. I'd cap most of my players at 31SPP probably. |
_________________
Nuffle Sucks!!!
 |
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 18:30 |
|
Heh, that's why they got rid of Peaked in favor of ageing eh? They thought it would result in player turnover, then it became obvious that people were thrilled when their stars stopped getting SPP and boosting their TR without getting any new skills!
As much as I hate ageing, I have to say that capping star players would be less than ideal idea* - it will essentailly lead to what they don't want - permanent super players hanging around teams without generating extra TR as they score/cas/etc more (isn't that why they made Star Players freeboot only?)
As much as I'd love to cap so many of my players, I just don't think it is a very good idea for Blood Bowl.
*enter someone decrying the Vaults Team Value system? Anyone? |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
Mr_Launcher
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 19:02 |
|
Maybe there should bere some sticky post explaining that "there is absolutely no point whatsoever in posting rule suggestions regarding ranked, faction or ladder". It seems to me that quite a lot of posters aren't aware that these divisions follow the official rules to the letter. |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 19:33 |
|
DivX would be the right place for such experiments. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
|
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 19:37 |
|
Yeah, but DivX is dead. I only wish they would put it to use. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2005 - 19:53 |
|
L R B
Living Rulebook.
that is..not gonna happen in ranked. But i´m strongly in favour of more experiments in DivX. But as the duke of Grumble is gone and, afaik, there hes not been appointed another grand leader of DivX, it´s not gonna heppen i fear.
M |
_________________
Stop the Whining! |
|
|
|
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
