legowarrior
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
|
 Posted:
Aug 12, 2011 - 16:59 |
 
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 12, 2011 - 17:38 |
|
How can it be awesome when it is total fail? |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 12, 2011 - 18:38 |
|
I have to agree; while the rosters were made to a guideline, and they do fit within this guideline, almost every team could be hugely improved if they were to use this guideline (yes even dorfs or zons); and there's no reason to have 'tier 3' teams based on this guideline. So if you make your own team using this guideline, you are virtually guaranteed to make a team that is better than all the current ones. So while it's fun, and cool, and I think making a league where we could all use teams we create would be awesome, I would never want this guideline to be mixed with the normal teams. |
|
|
legowarrior
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 12, 2011 - 19:40 |
|
The guidelines are just that, guidelines. A range if you will. If you can't make a team fit in the range, then it is most likely broken. If it does fit within the range, well, it might be broken.
I see it like Statistical Significant 1 tailed T test with an Alpha of .05. Those that don't fit the guidelines are definitively outliers that are 95% chance of being broken (5% of not being broken, like the lizardmen) just because you fit the guidelines doesn't mean the team isn't broken, it just means that the chance of it being broken is less then 95%. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 12, 2011 - 20:14 |
|
But look at it this way: if a guideline is used to make 24 teams, and you want the guideline to be useful for making future teams, then you would expect the best of those 24 teams to come close to broken; heck, if you have a team like Khemri (16 players Str 56) or Lizardmen (70k discount between all the players), that just barely exceeds the rules given in the guideline, then you'd expect those teams to be at least somewhat close to the best the guidelines can give. Otherwise, why are those limits the ones being given as limits that guide balanced creation?
But obviously Khemri are not that amazing. Nor are lizardmen. In fact, you can create a team with less than 54 Str between it's strongest 16 players, yet it can field five S 5 players and four S 4 players, at the same time! Which is clearly superior to both lizardmen and khemri, in the way that those teams are supposed to be strong at!
The problem with your test is that it implies people outside the limits are more likely to be broken; yet, something like 6 of the official teams don't follow the guidelines (dwarf, goblin, chaos pact, lizardmen, khemri (too strong overall), ogres (big guys without loner). That's 25%, yet these teams are deemed to be competitive enough to be playable. Now add in that we could modify all 24 teams so that they WERE within the limits of the guidelines, and EVERY SINGLE ONE would be stronger when you were finished with it. The result is that the guidelines simply are NOT strict enough. Far too many teams that are randomly created would definitely be within the guidelines, yet stronger than anything official.
Thus, if teams that are outliers have a 95% chance of being broken (despite 25% of the official teams being outliers), we also see that teams within the guidelines apparently also have a 95% chance of being broken.
The rules need to be more specific to the official teams, if they are to create teams balanced against the official teams.
Although personally, I'd like to see what would happen if we pushed the guidelines to the max, modified all 24 official teams (while attempting to keep their flavour), and used the results instead. If we can somehow figure out how to price skill access, I have a feeling we'd end up with something where these guidelines at least meant something. |
Last edited by Nelphine on %b %13, %2011 - %18:%Aug; edited 1 time in total |
|
Xeterog
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 18:13 |
|
2-points. 1) Ogres have bonehead on the ogre team. 2) these are guidlines used to get a starting point--then playtest the team to see if it needs changes outside of the guidelines to be balanced/competitive. |
_________________
- Xeterog |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 18:17 |
|
whoops, you are right; it's loner they lack. Edited. As to being balanced/competetive, if you could make all the teams stronger, and keep them within the guidelines, and if the guidelines serve any useful purpose, wouldn't you be able to come up with teams that are balanced, and yet closer to the limit of the guidelines? Perhaps close enough that you couldn't make new teams that combine several official teams strength's and yet still fall within the guidelines? |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 18:29 |
|
| Rijssiej wrote: | | How can it be awesome when it is total fail? |
This ^ need anyone say anymore? |
|
|
legowarrior
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 18:44 |
|
How does it totally fail? Maybe that needs to be said. |
|
|
legowarrior
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 18:46 |
|
| Nelphine wrote: | | whoops, you are right; it's loner they lack. Edited. As to being balanced/competetive, if you could make all the teams stronger, and keep them within the guidelines, and if the guidelines serve any useful purpose, wouldn't you be able to come up with teams that are balanced, and yet closer to the limit of the guidelines? Perhaps close enough that you couldn't make new teams that combine several official teams strength's and yet still fall within the guidelines? |
The guide lines do state that if the team has no other players with more then 2 strength, you can remove the loner from the big guy. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 13, 2011 - 19:27 |
|
oh I missed thjat. only 5 teams then. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2011 - 07:09 |
|
The actual 'totally fail' part, specifically: Skills. All skills are rated equal when creating a team, and (officially) skill access costs nothing. However, we know (via Chaos Pact linesmen) that skill access, when play tested, DOES cost something. Similarly, we look at a dorf team, and we look at a Slann team, and we KNOW that not all skills are created equal. Do all skills have useful potential so they should be in the game? Yes. Do all skills warrant costing 20k, no matter who is getting them (with some very rare exceptions)? No. Do the guidelines take either of these skill points into question? No.
Let us look at dorfs for example. A linesmen costs 70k, but ask ANY dorf player: Would you lose thick skull if it meant you could get your blockers for 60k?
Next, in a fumbbl setting, stats are also not created equal. Is +1 str on most characters worth 30 or 40 or 50k? Yes. Is -1 agi just as bad as -1 AV? How about -1 agi in order to get a skill?
Ask any dorf player in the box: Would you accept having AV 8 blockers, if they all started with guard? Ask a skaven: Would you accept -1 agi on your linesmen if they got block? If not a skaven, how about a Nurgle Rotter? How about a Chaos Minotaur having -1 agi, but starting with pro, or juggernaut?
Most teams have little tiny switches that they would do in a heartbeat that, according to the guidelines, would be exactly the same cost, and have no inherit reason why they should not do it.
Continuing on: Most teams have built in 'flaws' - but the guidelines don't mention these at all. We know, from playing, that the balance to an all block team like dorfs, is that they are super slow. We know that the balance to an all dodge team like zons is that they have inferior stats. We know that (somewhat) the balance to chaos teams access to mutation, is their official lack of any other starting abilities. But no where in the rules are these 'flaws' required. Why not have wardancers on your dorf team? Why not start a team with a Mv 9, agi 4, sprint, dodge, catch, sure feet one turner? Or if that isn't good enough, why not a Mv 8, agi 3, stunty, dodge, two heads, catch, sprint, sure feet, side step one turner?
Why not start a team where EVERY player has 3+ amazing skills, customized for it's role; and then give them all decay and AV 7. You don't care if anything dies, because you don't need ANY skill points to make the player perfect. They already have it. (Wardancer with horns? Dorf Blocker with guard? Runner with sure hands/block/dodge? Big guy with wrestle, jump up, tentacles, pro?) All of these things are easily doable. In fact, you can do them all on the same team, such that you start with 2 of the uber wardancers, 1 of the uber one turners, 1 of the uber big guys, 1 runner, 6 uber blockers, 2 re-rolls (who the heck in that list needs a re-roll anyway?), and an apothecary (as if you care if any of them die; just re-hire them, picture perfect!).
WE know better; but these are also pretty simple things to throw into a guideline: No more than one or two synergetic skills on any player. Teams need to pick a theme, and they can't stray from it (like the Strong vs Agile players, which is one very good thing about the guidelines - but you also need Skilled vs Strong, Skilled vs Speed, Skilled vs Agile limitations - note that Strong vs Speed doesn't have to be a limitation, as evidenced by Lizards; but they follow both Skilled vs Speed AND Skilled vs Strong limitations; norse looks like it might contradict Strong vs Skilled.. but (from my experience) the strong guys on the norse team never live up to their potential; they get picked on too much. Perhaps not all of my limitations need to be there. But something more than just Agile vs Strong definitely needs to). Teams shouldn't be able to buy every single positional, plus a few re-rolls, plus plus plus, off the bat. These guidelines are more like a place to start... for making the real guidelines. They simply aren't refined enough yet to have a hope of easily making enjoyable playable teams, but they (in some sense) are presented as just that - an easy guide to making teams that have a chance of being playable. |
|
|
legowarrior
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2011 - 16:19 |
|
If DWARFS (spelled correctly out of respect) don't start with Guard in exchange for +1 AV, is that 9 AV is only an increase of 10 points while Guard (a good skill) is an increase of 20 points. Obviously, then your dwarf would cost 80K, which is a bit much for a starting linesmen.
Anything has a chance at being playable if you terrible at the game.
Also, Space marines don't work, to much strength. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2011 - 17:29 |
|
Actually, I would spell it Dwarves, and I love Dwarves; I just like the word dorfs, and have referred to my own dwarves as dorfs for years (even before playing any GW game). Sorry about that; take out Thick Skull and make them AV 8, and give them guard, is what I meant, but I can see that wasn't clear at all. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 14, 2011 - 17:42 |
|
I made a team according to the guidelines and i think it's just about fine:
0-16 Linemen 4 3 2 7 Claw, Mighty Blow, Piling on 50k GASPM
0-2 Tacklers 6 3 4 8 Block, Side Step, Diving Tacke 130k GASPM
0-2 Ballhandler 8 3 4 8 Dodge, Sure Hands 130k GASPM
0-4 Fronties 4 3 2 8 Block 30k GASPM
0-4 Regulars 6 3 4 8 70k GASPM
0-1 Big Guy 3 5 1 9 Bone Head, Pro, Mighty Blow 110k GASPM |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
