koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 25, 2021 - 12:43 |
|
|
Grasshugger17
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
|
  Posted:
Aug 25, 2021 - 19:35 |
|
Nelphine wrote: | nooo you still need the run up on turn 16! RUN UP! |
Sneaky git gutter runner = 5 steps for the run-up + 4 steps for the after-party! |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 25, 2021 - 22:14 |
|
|
Waagh
Joined: Apr 13, 2019
|
  Posted:
Aug 26, 2021 - 20:03 |
|
Idk what this is supposed to be. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
  Posted:
Aug 26, 2021 - 20:18 |
|
MattDakka wrote: | If the rules are written as tabletop game where you don't play lot of games then they should have not even bothered with progression and 6 skill slots because realistically players will not manage to develop a lot. If the game is supposed to be played in short seasons then improving the rosters' balance at low TV would have been way better than this bad Season Redraft system.
Why playing a team without starting skills for 10 games just to fire some players who earned the basic skills after game 10? It just encourages playing top tier 1 teams with many basic skills, thus reducing the racial variety of a league.
Designer: "Hey, you can skill up your players in BB."
Gamer: "Cool, progression adds another layer to the game and allows to customize your players!"
Designer: "But, after 10 games, you have to fire some players and you will barely skill up some of them anyway."
Too many skills tend to break the game, but not enough skills make some teams not worth to be played at all. |
You are right.
Then again, Tiers are supposed to mean exactly that. If you want a challenge you can take tier 2 or 3, but those who perform better are tier 1. Accepting there are tiers then complaining that tier 2 or 3 do not seem as competitive as tier 1 sounds like being unable to grasp the meaning of tiers in the first place.
Either there are tiers, or there are many balanced rosters. If there are tiers, some things are bound to be strictly better than others, are they not? |
_________________
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 26, 2021 - 20:39 |
|
Waagh wrote: | Idk what this is supposed to be. |
Every phenotype of player in BB2020 with their SPP costs to construct illustrated.
If you are failing to grasp what A B C D mean in context of things, take a few guesses given what you know about the new rules.
Running the cost of saving for a Characteristic Improvement again, it illustrates a TV quirk - 3/4 of the time you roll the d16, you'll select +MA @ 20k and 1/4 of the time you'll select +AG @ 40k. If you were hoping for the 3/16 chance of getting +ST and don't have a use for +AG/+PA, you always CAN choose a secondary @ 40k but, you could have done that quite a few SPPs ago. Thus there is a deadweight loss if you don't select the Characteristic you rolled, which might be okay for Big Guy but raises a few questions:
How quickly can a Big Guy acquire SPP to even save for a Characteristic?
How quickly any player acquire SPP to even save for a Characteristic?
How often would you take +AV @10k over +MA @20k if you went the distance to roll for a Characteristic at all?
Are Wardancers going to be the best players in the game by a fair margin because they will reliably generate SPP by role and usage and can do so even better with a Stat @18 SPP with ANY of the selections, because they start off readymade? |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 04:37 |
|
I think the problem for the fast (MA 8) players is you can only go to MA 9, so one stat and done and you're then working on an MA 9 player that could've had T/MB for basically the same price in SPP.
Now, the woodie catcher, those you can take to MA 9 first skill very happily, and the ones land +AG can just go grab another stat for 2nd skill (or maybe 3rd after sidestep).
I think there's more too, Norse catcher, Zon catcher, Dorf runner, Khemri thrower, lone Ghoul on undead, a Vampire, could always just grab a stat first, see what turns up, as they're not too many games to 18spp naturally and makes a big difference with +MA, and would love +AG or +ST. |
_________________
|
|
Mingoose
Joined: Jul 28, 2016
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 05:15 |
|
What is better, a +MA +AG player, or 5 random primary skills? |
|
|
Waagh
Joined: Apr 13, 2019
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 05:47 |
|
I've rolled random primary skills. 5 random primary skills sucks. As for "saving for the stat" I think there are a few options there. Definitely want to do it on any player that like MRT says wants MA or AG. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 06:02 |
|
Mingoose wrote: | What is better, a +MA +AG player, or 5 random primary skills? |
Exactly! In fact, for the SPP cost of Characteristics, you could have two Selected Primaries (or Random Secondaries) and three Random Primaries, in that order. My hunch is that what's better is so steeply in favor of anything other than Characteristics with or without inherent skills or traits present.
I have about 800 games with HE in Box and if that is any guide, the estimates of how quickly one can get to even 38 SPP are...overstated. In many cases where my players high above 2 spp per game on average they had...yep...a Characteristic boost. I just don't get the sense we're gonna have the fuel to build players that have Characteristics in the timeframe we have to build them, nor that much of a increased meta incentive with rebuy bux, nor in game itself with the very situational peril of Stalling.
I really do wonder how goofy we can get with Min/Max builds since we'll have a ton of opportunities to do it. Don't be surprised to see me give cheese a go. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 06:13 |
|
Waagh wrote: | I've rolled random primary skills. 5 random primary skills sucks. As for "saving for the stat" I think there are a few options there. Definitely want to do it on any player that like MRT says wants MA or AG. |
Ooooh, how ugly was the 'lucky' player? What kind on what team? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 11:59 |
|
JanMattys wrote: |
Then again, Tiers are supposed to mean exactly that. If you want a challenge you can take tier 2 or 3, but those who perform better are tier 1. Accepting there are tiers then complaining that tier 2 or 3 do not seem as competitive as tier 1 sounds like being unable to grasp the meaning of tiers in the first place.
Either there are tiers, or there are many balanced rosters. If there are tiers, some things are bound to be strictly better than others, are they not? |
Actually I don't accept the tier idea, it's not necessary.
If I want to handicap myself in a league where there are less experienced coaches I can play a tier 1 team without using all the positionals and/or using fewer rrs than normal and/or taking sub-optimal skills.
In other words, you can make a good team worse with your roster composition, while the contrary is not possible.
I can't improve a tier 2 or 3 team because it would require an official roster change, which is a rule change, not a personal roster composition.
That said, it's impossible to accurately balance all the races, I know that, but what I mean is that the aim should be less "performance differences" amongst all the races, rather than adding clunky Season Redraft rules.
For example, Goblins with 0-2 rostered bribes, 2 non-Loner Trolls and a Sure Hands Pogoer would not be overpowered.
Halflings with a 0-1 rostered Master Chef and a Sure Hands player would not be overpowered.
Vampires with default Pro would not be overpowered.
Just to make some examples of what I mean with "improving rosters' balance". |
|
|
Waagh
Joined: Apr 13, 2019
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 13:04 |
|
MattDakka wrote: | JanMattys wrote: |
Then again, Tiers are supposed to mean exactly that. If you want a challenge you can take tier 2 or 3, but those who perform better are tier 1. Accepting there are tiers then complaining that tier 2 or 3 do not seem as competitive as tier 1 sounds like being unable to grasp the meaning of tiers in the first place.
Either there are tiers, or there are many balanced rosters. If there are tiers, some things are bound to be strictly better than others, are they not? |
Actually I don't accept the tier idea, it's not necessary.
If I want to handicap myself in a league where there are less experienced coaches I can play a tier 1 team without using all the positionals and/or using fewer rrs than normal and/or taking sub-optimal skills.
In other words, you can make a good team worse with your roster composition, while the contrary is not possible.
I can't improve a tier 2 or 3 team because it would require an official roster change, which is a rule change, not a personal roster composition.
That said, it's impossible to accurately balance all the races, I know that, but what I mean is that the aim should be less "performance differences" amongst all the races, rather than adding clunky Season Redraft rules.
For example, Goblins with 0-2 rostered bribes, 2 non-Loner Trolls and a Sure Hands Pogoer would not be overpowered.
Halflings with a 0-1 rostered Master Chef and a Sure Hands player would not be overpowered.
Vampires with default Pro would not be overpowered.
Just to make some examples of what I mean with "improving rosters' balance". |
We did a random ledgend in exhibition games a couple times. Saurus with Kick, DP, wrestle, fend, dauntless, AV
We allowed 1 stat and up to two secondary skills
Human catcher got MA, wrestle, Kick, DP shadowing, and something. I don't remember exactly I know it wasn't as bad as the saurus.
Roll them up yourself on a test division team. They are a really bad way to go. |
|
|
Chivite
Joined: Sep 04, 2017
|
  Posted:
Aug 27, 2021 - 20:56 |
|
Not gonna lie, a league where you are given a single legend full random player sounds fun |
|
|
Mingoose
Joined: Jul 28, 2016
|
  Posted:
Aug 28, 2021 - 00:33 |
|
Introducing the team captain, Captain Redundant. Wrestle, block, stand firm, sidestep, juggernaut, brawler ftw |
|
|
|
| |